[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10197

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00022-HLM-WEJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JAYE LEIGH THOMAS, 

a.k.a. James Leigh Thomas,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(November 5, 2015)

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Jaye Leigh Thomas appeals his conviction for possessing cocaine with intent 

to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. 

Case: 15-10197 Date Filed: 11/05/2015 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Thomas argues that the district court plainly erred by failing to comply with 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 before accepting his plea of guilty and in 

failing to ensure that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Specifically, 

Thomas complains that the district court (1) failed to question him during his Rule 

11 plea colloquy about whether he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol or 

under a doctor’s care; (2) failed to advise him of his right to testify and to present 

evidence; and (3) failed to make an on-the-record determination that his guilty plea 

was voluntary. Thomas did not raise these allegations with the district court or 

move to withdraw his plea. 

Where the defendant neither objects to the plea proceedings nor moves to 

withdraw the plea, we review the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 for plain 

error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002). 

Under plain error review, the defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and 

(3) that affects substantial rights. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1276 

(11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation mark omitted). If these elements are met, we

may recognize the error, in our discretion, if the error “seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal 

quotation mark omitted). Plain error cannot be established “where the explicit 

language of a statute or rule does not resolve an issue” and “there is no precedent 

from the Supreme Court or this [c]ourt directly resolving it.” United States v. 

Case: 15-10197 Date Filed: 11/05/2015 Page: 2 of 5 
3

Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003). “A defendant who seeks 

reversal of his conviction after a guilty plea, [claiming] the district court committed 

plain error under Rule 11, must show a reasonable probability that, [absent] the 

error, he would not have” pled guilty. United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 

U.S. 74, 83, 124 S. Ct. 2333, 2340 (2004). Moreover, we “will uphold a plea 

colloquy that technically violates Rule 11, but adequately addresses” the core 

concerns of Rule 11. United States v. Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F.3d 945, 950 (11th 

Cir. 2000). 

Under Rule 11, the district court must “address the defendant personally in 

open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant 

understands, the nature of the” plea being offered and the “potential consequences”

of that plea. United States v. Lewis, 115 F.3d 1531, 1535 (11th Cir. 1997) (per 

curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). To determine whether the waiver is 

knowing and voluntary, a court accepting a guilty plea must comply with the three 

core concerns of Rule 11 by ensuring that: “(1) the guilty plea is free from 

coercion; (2) the defendant understands the nature of the charges; and (3) the 

defendant understands the direct consequences of his plea.” United States v. Jones, 

143 F.3d 1417, 1418–19 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). We base our determination of whether these core concerns were satisfied 

by reviewing the record of the Rule 11 hearing, including any written plea 

Case: 15-10197 Date Filed: 11/05/2015 Page: 3 of 5 
4

agreement. Id. at 1420. There is a strong presumption that statements made during 

a plea colloquy are true. United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir. 

1994). 

Thomas’s claim that the court failed to advise him of his right to testify or to 

present evidence is without merit. Thomas entered into a written plea agreement 

with the government. The plea agreement reflects a list of rights that Thomas 

waived by pleading guilty. This section includes a statement that “[i]f the 

defendant wished, he could testify on his own behalf and present evidence in his 

defense.” The agreement specifically states Thomas understands he is giving up 

these rights. At the Rule 11 plea colloquy, Thomas stated he was reasonably wellsatisfied with the plea agreement. He admitted he was guilty and that he had 

sufficient time to think about his plea agreement and discuss it with his attorney 

before pleading guilty. 

As to Thomas’s claim that the district court should have asked him whether 

he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or under a physician’s care, before 

accepting a guilty plea, any such error cannot be deemed “plain” since Rule 11 

does not impose such a requirement on the sentencing court, nor is there case law 

from this circuit reflecting such a requirement. And, Thomas does not allege that 

he was, in fact, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or under a physician’s care 

at the plea hearing. 

Case: 15-10197 Date Filed: 11/05/2015 Page: 4 of 5 
5

Finally, as to Thomas’s claim that the district court failed to make an on-therecord determination that his guilty plea was voluntary as required by Rule 

11(b)(2), Thomas verified in his plea agreement that his plea was voluntarily made. 

If there is plain error, Thomas is unable to demonstrate that such error affected his 

substantial rights because he has made no showing that he would have pleaded not 

guilty and gone to trial, absent the error. Even if there was error that affected his 

substantial rights, he has not demonstrated that the error seriously affects the

fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-10197 Date Filed: 11/05/2015 Page: 5 of 5