### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ar c h 1, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12298 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 2 0 8 6 2 - C R - K MM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D E S M O N D D U R H A M , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 1, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , M A R C U S an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A f te rp le a d in g g u ilty to a c o u n t o f c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to2

di s tr i but e f

i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 846, D e s m ond D urha m a r gue s f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l tha thi s pl e a s houl d be vaca t ed because the di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed pl ai n err or du ri ng hi s R ul e 11 p l ea c o llo q u y b y f

a ilin g to o u tlin e th e e le m e n ts o f h is o f f e n s e o rr e a d th e c o n te n ts o f h is in d ic tm e n t. D u rh a m a ls o ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n s to w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl eaand for appo i nt m entof new coun se l . F or the re as on s that f o l l o w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B a c kgr ound F o llo w in g h is in d ic tm e n t f o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te f iv e k ilo g r a m s o rm o r e o f c o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 , a n d a tte m p t to pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 , D u rh a m a g r e e d to p le a d g u ilty to th e c o n s p ir a c y c o u n t in e xc ha nge f

orthe gove rnm e nt ’ s a gr e e m e ntt o s e e k di s m i s s a l of the s ubs t a nt i ve c o u n t, to r e f

r a in f r o m s e e k in g e n h a n c e d p e n a ltie s u n d e r2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 1 , a n d to re com m end a se nt ence atthe l ow end o f the gu i del i nes r ange. A tthe c ha nge - of

- pl e a he a r i ng, the c our tde t e r m i ne d tha tD ur ha m ha d a tw el fth g ra de educat i on , thathe had b ee n g i ven a copy of the i nd i ctm ent , and t hat h e h a d “f u lly d is c u s s e d ” th e c h a r g e s in th e in d ic tm e n t a n d th e c a s e in g e n e r a l w ith hi s c ou nsel . D urham confi rm ed thathe w as sa t i sf i ed w i th cou nsel and t he advi ce3

he ha d r e c e i ve d. T he c our te xpl a i ne d tha tD ur ha m w a s pl e a di ng gui l ty t o a f e l ony and d es cr i bed t he po t ent i al penal t i es . T he courtal so desc ri bed t he ri gh t s D urham w oul d f or e go by pl e a di ng gui l ty . D ur ha m s t a t e d tha the unde r s t ood the i m p l i cat i o n s o f h i s g u i l ty p l ea an d th ath e w as en t eri n g th e p l ea v o l u n t ari l y. T h e g o v e rn m e n t m a d e th e f o llo w in g p r o f

f e ra t th e p le a h e a r in g : A confi dent i al i nform ant(“ C I” ) w orki ng w i th the go vernm entcont ac t ed a m an n a m e d “J u n io r ” to a rr a n g e th e s a le o f c o c a in e . J u n io rp u t th e C I in c o n ta c t w ith D urha m . O ve ra pe r i od of s e ve n da y s , the C I a nd D urha m ne got i a t e d the s a l e of t e n k i l o g r a ms o f

c o c a i n e . Ev e n tu a l l y , th e tw o me ti n a p a r k i n g l o t , w h e r e th e CI g a v e D u rh a m a b a g o f

c o c a in e in e x c h a n g e f

o ra d o w n p a y m e n t o f

$ 2 ,0 0 0 . T he r e upon, D urha m w a s a rr e s t e d. D urha m c onf

i r m e d dur i ng hi s pl e a c ol l oquy tha tthe pr of f e rw a s c orr e c ta nd ent er ed hi s gui l ty pl ea . T he courtac ce pt ed D urham ’ s gui l ty pl ea , fi nd i ng thatthere w a s a f a c tu a l b a s is f

o rth e p le a a n d th a t it w a s m a d e k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily . T w o m onths a f

t e re nt e r i ng hi s gui l ty pl e a , D urha m m ove d t o w i thdr a w the pl e a a nd t o app oi ntnew coun se l . A tthatt i m e, D urham expl ai ned t hathe had m ade a m i st ake i n p l ea di ng gu i l ty. D ef ense coun se l al so expl ai ned t hatal tho ug h D urham ha d e xpr e s s e d hi s de s i r e t o w i thdr a w the pl e a “ ve ry s hor t l y ” a f t e ri tw a s a c c e pt e d, c o u n s e l d e la y e d f

ilin g th e m o tio n to a llo w tim e f o rD u rh a m to r e c o n s id e rh is4

deci si on . T he go vernm entobj ec t ed, as se rt i ng thatthe F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P r o c e d u r e 1 1 ( “R u le 1 1 ” ) h e a r in g h a d b e e n s u f f ic ie n t a n d th a t th e r e w a s n o “f a ir and j ustre as on ” t o al l ow D urham t o w i thd ra w hi s pl ea . T he go vernm entfurther u r g e d th e c o u r t to c o n d u c t a h e a r in g o n D u rh a m ’s m o tio n to ap p o in t n e w c o u n s e l. T he courtaddres se d D urham ’ s m ot i on s a tse nt enci ng . D urham as se rt ed that hi s pl e a ha d be e n c oe r c e d by hi s a tt orne y , a nd he r e que s t e d ne w c ouns e l . T he c o u r t n o te d , h o w e v e r , th a t D u rh a m h a d te s tif ie d d u r in g h is p le a c o llo q u y th a t h is pl e a ha d notbe e n c oe r c e d. F ol l ow i ng que s t i oni ng, de f e ns e c ouns e l s t a t e d tha the had b ee n i n p ra ct i ce for over tw enty y ea rs and t hathe bel i eved he had g i ven D urha m the c orr e c ta dvi c e . N e ve r the l e s s , de f e ns e c ouns e l s t a t e d tha tbe c a us e the a tto rn e y - c lie n t r e la tio n s h ip w a s n o lo n g e rw o r k in g a n d D u rh a m h a d e x p r e s s e d h is bel i ef thatcoun se l had forced hi m t o p l ea d g ui l ty, the courtou gh tt o app oi nta new a tt o rn e y t o d e f

e n d h i m. D urha m t e s t i f

i e d tha the ha d be e n c oe r c e d i nt o pl e a di ng gui l ty a nd tha the had o nl y had a f

ew m i nu t es i n w hi ch t o speak w i th cou nsel before the change-ofpl eahear i ng . D urham further t es t i fi ed thatdu ri ng the pl eacol l oq uy he answ er ed th e c o u r t’s q u e s tio n s a s h e h a d b e e n in s tru c te d to a n s w e rth e m b y c o u n s e l. A tse nt enci ng , the courtno t ed D urham ’ s f am i l i ar i ty w i th the cr i m i nal j ust i ce sy st em , as evi denced by a l engt hy cr i m i nal hi st ory. T he courtal so expres se d5

c onc e rn r e ga r di ng the w a s t e of j udi c i a l r e s our c e s tha tw oul d r e s ul tf r om va c a t i ng D urha m ’ s gui l ty pl e a . F i na l l y , the c our tr e i t e r a t e d tha tD urha m ha d t e s t i f i e d a tthe p le a h e a r in g th a t h e h a d n o t b e e n c o e r c e d , h e h a d b e e n p r o v id e d a n o p p o r tu n ity to i nf or m the c our ttha tthe pl e a w a s notgi ve n f r e e l y , a nd he ha d c onf

i r m e d tha tthe fa ctual proffe r w as corr ec t . T he courtdeni ed D urham ’ s m ot i on s t o app oi ntnew c o u n s e l a n d to w ith d r a w th e g u ilty p le a . D e f e n s e c o u n s e l o b

je c te d to th e s e ru lin g s . T h e c o u r t s e n te n c e d D u rh a m to 1 6 8 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. I I . D i s c us s i on S uf f i c i e nc y of

P l e a C ol l oquy D urha m f

i r s ta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o a ddr e s s the c or e c onc e rns of R ul e 11 a tthe c ha nge - of - pl e a he a r i ng a nd tha t , a c c or di ngl y , hi s pl e a m us tbe vaca t ed. S peci fi ca l l y, he cont ends thatthe courtfa i l ed t o d et erm i ne w hether D urham kn ew of and u nd er st oo d the nature of the charges agai nsthi m , as the court di d note xpl a i n the c ha r ge s orthe e l e m e nt s of the of f e ns e , a nd i tdi d notr e a d or s u m m a r iz e th e in d ic tm e n t. A s D urham concedes, he di d n otra i se a R ul e 11 chal l enge t o the gu i l ty pl ea be f or e the di s tr i c tc our t . W he n a de f e nda ntf a i l s t o a s s e r ta R ul e 11 vi ol a t i on i n the d is tr ic t c o u r t, h e m u s t e s tab lis h p la in e rr o ro n d ir e c t ap p e a l to b e e n title d to r e lie f . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M onr oe , 353 F . 3d 1346, 1349 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . “ P l a i n e rr or6

oc c ur s w he r e ( 1) the r e i s a n e rr or ; ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n orobvi ous ; ( 3) a f f e c t i ng the de f e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s i n tha ti tw a s pr e j udi c i a l a nd notha r m l e s s ; a nd ( 4) thatse ri ou sl y a ff

ec t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of the j ud i ci al p r o c e e d in g s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . H a ll, 3 1 4 F .3 d 5 6 5 , 5 6 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . In eval uat i ng w hether adefe nd anthas s ho w n thathi s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s w er e a f f e c te d o rp r e

ju d ic e d , th is C o u r t h a s e x a m in e d th e th r e e “c o r e o b je c tiv e s ” o f

R u le 11: “ ( 1) e ns ur i ng tha tthe gui l ty pl e a i s f r e e of c oe r c i on; ( 2) e ns ur i ng tha tthe defe nd antun ders t ands the nature of the charges agai nsthi m ; and (3) ensuri ng that the de f e nda nti s a w a r e of

the di r e c tc ons e que nc e s of the gui l ty pl e a . ” M onr oe , 353 F . 3d at13 54 (i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). “ T hi s C ou rthas uph el d p l eacol l oq ui es th a t f a il to a d d r e s s a n ite m e x p r e s s ly r e q u ir e d b y R u le 1 1 s o lo n g a s th e o v e r a ll pl eacol l oq uy adequat el y a dd re ss es these three core concerns. ” I d. F urtherm ore,

“ i n the R ul e 11 con t ext , the re vi ew i ng courtm ay consul tthe w ho l e r ec ord w hen c ons i de r i ng the e f

f e c tof a n e rr oron s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . ” I d. a t1350 ( c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . “[ T ]h e in q u iry v a r ie s f

r o m c a s e to c a s e d e p e n d in g o n th e r e la tiv e d if f ic u lty of c om pr e he ns i on of

the c ha r ge s a nd of

the de f e nda nt ’ s s ophi s t i c a t i on a nd i nt e l l i ge nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e P a c e , 120 F . 3d 233, 237 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our te ns ur e d tha tD urha m ha d r e c e i ve d a7

c opy of the i ndi c tm e nta nd ha d di s c us s e d i tw i th c ouns e l . T he c our ta l s o r e a d the c ha r ge t o w hi c h D urha m w a s pl e a di ng gui l ty a nd e xpl a i ne d the pe na l t i e s , a nd the c o u r t a d d r e s s e d th e r ig h ts th a t D u rh a m w o u ld f o r f e it b y e n te r in g h is p le a . M oreover, the go vernm entm ade afa ctual proffe r thatou t l i ned t he cond uct c ons t i tut i ng the of

f e ns e . F i na l l y , D ur ha m ha d a tw e l f th gr a de e duc a t i on a nd a s uf f i c i e ntc r i m i na l hi s t ory tha tthe c our tc oul d a s s um e a c e r t a i n f a m i l i a r i ty w i th the ju d ic ia l s y s te m . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . B e ll, 7 7 6 F .2 d 9 6 5 , 9 6 8 - 6 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) . A c c or di ngl y , D urha m ’ s r e l i a nc e on U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Q ui none s , 97 F . 3d 473 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) a n d U n ite d S ta te s v . T e le m a q u e , is m is p la c e d . T h e d e f e n d a n t in Q u in o n e s , u n lik e D u rh a m , e x p r e s s e d e q u iv o c a tio n w h e n e n te r in g h is g u ilty p le a . M or e ove r , the Q ui none s c our te xpl i c i t l y not e d tha t , be y ond the m e r e f a i l ur e of the di s tr i c tc our tt o s e toutthe e l e m e nt s of the c ha r ge d of

f e ns e , the r e c or d di d not o th e rw is e e s tab lis h th a t th e d e f e n d a n t u n d e r s to o d th e n a tu r e o f th e c h a r g e s . L i ke w i s e , i n T e l e m a que , unl i ke the i ns t a ntc a s e , the di s tr i c tc our tr e f e rr e d t o the n atu re o f th e ch arg ed o ffen se o n l y o n ce an d d i d n o task th e d efen d an ti f d efen se co u n sel h ad ex p l ai n ed th e ch arg es. I n c ons i de r a t i on of

the a bove , a nd be c a us e c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e nt t o di s tr i but e drugs i s not“ the m os tc om pl i c a t e d of of f e ns e s , ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T e l e m a que , 244 F . 3d 1247, 1249 ( 11th C i r . 2001) , w e hol d tha ta ny e rr orthe8

d istrict co u rt m ay h av e m ad e in fa il in g to d iscu ss th e e lem en ts o f D u rh am ’s o f f e n s e d u r in g th e p le a c o llo q u y d o e s n o t c o n s titu te p la in e rr o r . M ot i on t o W i thd ra w G ui l ty P l ea D u rh a m n e x t a r g u e s th a t th e c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g h is m ot i on t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl eabecause D urham di d n othave cl ose a ss i st ance o f c o u n s e l in lig h t o f

h is c la im th a t c o u n s e l h a d c o e r c e d h im in to e n te r in g th e p le a . H e f urther a ss ert s thathi s pl eaw as no tkn ow i ng l y a nd vo l un t ar i l y e nt er ed and t hat hi s pl e a pr oc e e di ngs us e d f e w j udi c i a l r e s our c e s . F i na l l y , D urha m de ni e s tha tthe go vernm entw i l l suff

erany pre

j ud i ce i f he i s a l l ow ed t o w i thd ra w hi s pl ea . W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on t o w i thdr a w a gui l ty pl e a f or a n a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , r e v e r s in g o n ly if th e d e c is io n is a rb itr a ry a n d u n r e a s o n a b le . U ni t ed S t at es v. F re i xas, 33 2 F . 3d 13 14 , 13 18 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). A de f e nda ntm a y w i thdr a w a gui l ty pl e a a f t e rthe pl e a ha s be e n a c c e pt e d a nd pr i ort o hi s s e nt e nc e be i ng i m pos e d i f he s how s a “ f

a i ra nd j us tr e a s on” f

orthe w i thd ra w al . F ed. R . C ri m . P . 11 (d)( 2)(B ). In det erm i ni ng w hether adefe nd anthas pr ovi de d a f

a i ra nd j us tr e a s on f

orw i thdr a w a l of

hi s pl e a , a c our te xa m i ne s the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s, i ncl ud i ng : “ (1) w hether c l ose a ss i st ance of coun se l w as avai l abl e; (2) w hether the pl eaw as kn ow i ng and v ol un t ary; (3) w hether j udi c i a l r e s our c e s w oul d be c ons e r ve d; a nd ( 4) w he the rthe gove rnm e ntw oul d be9

pr e j udi c e d i f

the de f e nda ntw e r e a l l ow e d t o w i thdr a w hi s pl e a . ” F r e i xa s , 332 F . 3d a t1318 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons m a r ks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . W e a l s o c ons i de rthe de f e nda nt ’ s a dm i s s i on of

gui l tdur i ng the pl e a c ol l oquy a nd the t i m i ng of the m ot i on t o w i thd ra w . U ni t ed S t at es v. R og er s, 84 8 F . 2d 16 6, 16 8 (11 th C i r. 19 88 ). H e r e , D urha m t e s t i f

i e d a thi s c ha nge - of

- pl e a he a r i ng tha the w a s gui l ty of the cond ucti n the go vernm ent ’ s f ac tual proffe r; he further s t at ed thathi s pl eaw as e nt e r e d know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y a nd tha the w a s s a t i s f i e d w i th the a dvi c e of c ouns e l . T he c our tf

ur the rnot e d tha ta l l ow i ng the w i thdr a w a l w oul d w a s t e the j u d i ci al reso u rces th ath ad b een ex p en d ed d u ri n g th e p l ea p ro ceed i n g s. D u rh a m h a s p r o d u c e d n o e v id e n c e e s tab lis h in g th a t h e w a s c o e r c e d in to pl ea di ng gu i l ty. O n the cont ra ry , defe nse c ou nsel t es t i fi ed thathe had n otcoer ce d D u rh a m in to p le a d in g g u ilty , a n d h is a d v ic e r e g a r d in g th e g u ilty p le a ap p e a r s to h a v e b e e n s o u n d in th a t it e n a b le d D u rh a m to a v o id e n h a n c e d p e n a ltie s p u r s u a n t to § 851. F ur the r m or e , the c our tpr ovi de d D ur ha m w i th a n oppor tuni ty dur i ng the pl eacol l oq uy t o i nform the courtthathe had b ee n coerce d. Inst ea d, D urham st at ed thathi s pl eaw as no tthe prod uctof coer ci on . T he courti s perm i tt ed t o m ake a s tr ong pr e s um pt i on of

truth r e ga r di ng s t a t e m e nt s m a de by a de f e nda ntdur i ng a pl eacol l oq uy. U ni t ed S t at es v. M edl ock, 12 F . 3d 18 5, 18 7 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). A c c or di ngl y , w e hol d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ngIn B onner v . Ci ty of Pritc ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 07 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 1 court he ld that all decisions handed down by the old Fifth Circuit bef

ore theclose of busine ss on September 3 0, 19 81 , a

rebin dingpre c e dent in th eEl e venth Circ uit . 10 D urham ’ s m ot i on t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl ea . M ot i on for A pp oi nt m entof N ew C ou nsel F i na l l y , D urha m a s s e r t s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by de ny i ng hi s m ot i on for app oi nt m entof new coun se l i n l i gh tof hi s c on t ent i on thathe had b ee n coerce d i nt o pl e a di ng gui l ty . H e a s s e r t s tha tr e f us i ng hi s r e que s tf

orne w c ouns e l c r e a t e d a c o n f lic t th a t r e n d e r e d h is e x is tin g c o u n s e l in e f f e c tiv e u n d e rth e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. T h e d ec isio n w h eth erto ap p o in t n ew co u n se l i s in th e d istrict co u rt’s di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. D i ni t z, 53 8 F . 2d 12 14 , 12 19 n. 7 (5t h C i r. 19 76 ). 1

“ U nl e s s a S i xth A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on i s s how n, w he the rt o appoi nta di f f e r e nt la w y e rf o ra n in d ig e n t c r im in a l d e f e n d a n t w h o e x p r e s s e s d is s a tis f a c tio n w ith h is c our t - appoi nt e d c ouns e l i s a m a tt e rc om m i tt e d t o the s ound di s c r e t i on of the di stri ctcourt . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. Y ou ng , 48 2 F . 2d 99 3, 99 5 (5t h C i r. 19 73 ). A n i ndi ge ntc r i m i na l de f e nda ntha s a n a bs ol ut e r i ghtt o be r e pr e s e nt e d by c ouns e l , buthe doe s notha ve a r i ghtt o de m a nd tha tadi f f e r e ntl a w y e rbe appoi nt e d, e xc e ptupon a s how i ng of good c a us e . I d. G ood c a us e f ors ubs t i tut i on of c ouns e l c a nnotbe de t e r m i ne d “ s ol e l y a c c or di ng t o the s ubj e c t i ve s t a nda r d of w ha tthe de f

e nda ntpe r c e i ve s . ” T hom a s v. W a i nw r i ght , 767 F . 2d 738, 74211

(ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). F u rth erm o re, a d efen d an t ’ s g en eral l o ss o f co n fi d en ce o r tru st i n h i s c ou nsel , st andi ng al on e, i s i nsuffi ci entt o j ust i fy subst i tut i on . Id. R ather, g o o d c a u s e r e q u ir e s th e d e f e n d a n t to s h o w a c o n f

lic t o f in te r e s t, a c o m p le te br e a kdow n i n c om m uni c a t i on ori rr e c onc i l a bl e c onf l i c t . Y oung, 482 F . 2d a t995. H e r e , D urha m pr oduc e d no e vi de nc e , othe rtha n hi s ow n t e s t i m ony , tha the a n d h is a tto rn e y s u f

f e r e d a c o m p le te b r e a k d o w n in c o m m u n ic a tio n . I n d e e d , h is al l egat i on s a re cont ra di ct ed by hi s t es t i m on y a tthe change-of-pl eahear i ng , at w h i ch h e st at ed th ath e w as sat i sfi ed w i th h i s co u n sel . Itap p ears th atd efen se c ouns e l ’ s pe r f

orm a nc e m e tthe s t a nda r ds of a de qua t e r e pr e s e nt a t i on. I n e xc ha nge f orthe gui l ty pl e a , the gove rnm e nta gr e e d t o s e e k di s m i s s a l of the s e c ond c ountof the i nd i ctm ent , i tre m ov ed the enhanced penal t i es prov i si on , and i tre com m ended th a tDu rh a m r e c e i v e a s e n t e n c e a tth e l o w e n d o f th e g u i d e l i n e s . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we ho l d thatD urham re ce i ved adequ at e r epre se nt at i on and t he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr in f a ilin g to f

in d g o o d c a u s e to ap p o in t n e w c o u n s e l. F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I R ME D.