FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT January 24, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL 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. 04- 15485 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 2 0 9 8 0 - CR- PCH 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 A R T E M I O R A M O S , J R ., 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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 24, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A r t e m i o R a m os , J r . a r gue s f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l tha thi s c onvi c t i onWe reviewfor plain error when, a s here , the def

endant did not raise any

Rule 11 issue 1 before the district cour

t. United States v. J ames, 210 F .3d 1342, 1343 (11th Cir. 2000). Under plain error review, any

error must be plain, af

fect substantial rights and seriously implicate the fairne ss, integrity , or public reputation of judicial proce eding s. United States v. Hansen, 262 F.3d 1217, 1248 ( 11th Cir. 2001). 2 an d 1 2 0 -m o n th sen t en ce are im p ro p er b ased o n th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s fai l u re t o ad v i se hi m a thi s pl e ac ol l oquy of the m a nda t ory s t a tut ory m i ni m um , orof the f ol l ow i ng f unda m e nt a l r i ght s unde rF e d. R . C r i m . P . 11( b) ( 1) ( E ) a nd 11( b) ( 1) ( I ) : ( 1) t o be r e pr e s e nt e d by c ouns e l a ttr i a l a nd e ve ry s t a ge of the pr oc e e di ng, ( 2) t o c onf r ont a n d c r o s s - e x a m in e a d v e r s e w itn e s s e s , ( 3 ) to te s tif y a n d p r e s e n t e v id e n c e , a n d ( 4 ) to b e p r o te c te d f

r o m c o m p e lle d s e lf

- in c r im in a tio n . O n appe a l , R a m os c onc e de s tha tpl a i n e rr orr e vi e w i s appr opr i a t e be c aus e he di d n otra i se these i ss ues bel ow . R ul e 11 p rovi des thata “ defe nd antm aypl ea d 1 n o tg u i l ty , g u i l ty , o r( w i th th e c o u r t ’ s c o n s e n t ) n o l o c o n t e n d e r e . ” Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 11( a ) ( 1) . A ddi t i ona l l y , R ul e 11 r e qui r e s adi s tr i c tc our t , be f or e i ta c c e pt s apl e aof gui l ty , t o i nf

orm the de f

e nda ntof

, a nd de t e rm i ne tha tthe de f e nda ntunde r s t a nds th e f o llo w in g r ig h ts r e le v a n t to th is ap p e a l: ( D ) the r i ghtt o be r e pr e s e nt e d by c ouns e l - - a nd i f ne c e s s a ry ha ve the c ourtappoi ntc ouns e l - - a ttr i a l a nd a te ve ry othe rs t a ge of the pr oc e e di ng

. . . (E ) th e ri g h tattri al t o co n fro n tan d cro ss-ex am i n e ad v erse w i tn esses, t o be pr ot e c t e d f

r om c om pe l l e d s e l f

- i nc r i m i na t i on, t o t e s t i f

y a nd pres entevi dence, and t o com pel the att endance of w i tness es

. . .3

(I) an y m an d at o ry m i n i m u m p en al ty. F e d .R .C r im .P . 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) . I n the R ul e 11 c ont e xt , the S upr e m e C our tha s he l d “ tha tas i l e ntde f e nda nt ha s the bur de n t o s a t i s f

y the pl a i n- e rr orrul e ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V onn, 535 U . S . 55, 59, 122 S . C t . 1043, 1046, 152 L . E d. 2d 90 ( 2002) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Mo n r o e , 3 5 3 F . 3 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( h o l d i n g th a t“ i n p l a i n - e rr o rr e v i e w, the defendantbear s the bu rden of persuas i on w i th res pectt o p re j ud i ce or the ef

fe ct o n su b stan ti al rig h ts”) . A d d it io n ally, th e S u p re m e C o u rt h as re ce n tl y h eld th at “a de f e nda ntw ho s e e ks r e ve r s a l of hi s c onvi c t i on a f

t e ragui l ty pl e a , on the gr ound th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o m m itte d p la in e rr o ru n d e rR u le 1 1 , m u s t s h o w ar e a s o n ab le prob abi l i ty that , bu tfor the error, he w ou l d n othave ent er ed the pl ea . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. D om i ngue z - B e ni t e z , 542 U . S . 74, 82 , 124 S . C t . 2333, 2340, 159 L . E d. 2d 15 7 (20 04 ). F urtherm ore, the S up re m e C ou rthas hel d “ thata r evi ew i ng courtm ay consul tthe w ho l e r ec ord w hen con si deri ng the ef fe ctof any e rr or on subst ant i al r i ght s ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V onn, 535 U . S . 55, 59, 75, 122 S . C t . 1043, 1046, 1055, 152 L . E d. 2d. 90 ( 2002) ; s e e a l s o M onr oe , 353 F . 3d a t1350 a nd n. 3 ( hol di ng thati n the R ul e 11 con t extthe “ re vi ew i ng courtm ayconsul tthe w ho l e r ec ord w hen con si deri ng the ef fe ctof any e rr or on subst ant i al ri gh t s” and n ot i ng that V on n exp re ss l y s ett l ed any i ncon si st encyre l at ed t o rel yi ng on the w ho l e r ec ord4

w hen con si deri ng w hether aR ul e 11 err or occurre d o r pre j ud i ce d a defendant ). In e x p la in in g w h ic h p a rts o f th e r e c o r d m a y b e in c lu d e d in ac o u r t’s r e v ie w o f aR u le 1 1 v io la tio n , th e S u p r e m e C o u rt in V o n n s ta te d th a t: T he A dvi s ory C om m i tt e e i nt e nde d the e f f e c tof e rr ort o be a s s e s s e d on an exi st i ng re cord, no qu es t i on , bu ti tdi d n otm ean t o l i m i tthatre cord s tr ic tly to th e p le ap r o c e e d in g s : th e e n q u iry “‘m u s t b e r e s o lv e d s o le ly o n th e b a s is o f

th e R u le 1 1 tr a n s c r ip t’ a n d th e o th e rp o r tio n s ( e .g ., s e n te n c in g h e a r in g ) o f

th e lim ite d r e c o r d m a d e in s u c h c a s e s .” A dvi s ory C om m i tt e e ’ s N ot e s 1569 ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C oron ado, 55 4 F . 2d 16 6, 17 0, n. 5 (C . A . 5 1 97 7)). V o n n , 5 3 5 U .S . a t 7 4 , 1 2 2 S .C t. a t 1 0 5 4 - 5 5 . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t th e n h e ld th a t, w h e n d e te rm in in g if

th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f

R u le 1 1 w e r e m e t, th e c o u r t s h o u ld c o n s id e rth a t th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s a d v is e d o f

h is r ig h t to tr ia l c o u n s e l d u r in g h is i ni t i a l appe a r a nc e a nd a thi s f i r s ta rr a i gnm e nt . I d. F ur the rm or e , i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ar ey , 8 8 4 F .2 d 5 4 7 , 5 4 8 -4 9 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 9 ), w e, in h o ld in g th at a d ef en d an t’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s w e r e nota f f e c t e d by the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a i l i ng t o i nf

orm the defe nd antof the gu i del i nes and a m andat ory t erm of supervi se d rel ea se , expl ai ned th a t: A ts e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc our ta dvi s e d [ de f e nda nt ] , a s the pres ent ence re po rthad i nform ed hi m previ ou sl y, thatthe gu i del i nes pres cr i bed a t erm of i m pri sonm entand a m adat ory t erm of supervi se d re l ea se . N ei ther app el l antno r hi s a tt orney obj ec t ed, and the court p r o c e e d e d t o i m p o s e th e p r e s c r i b e d p e n a l ty . [ De f e n d a n t ’ s ] o wn cond uctthere fore i nd i ca t es thathe w as no tharm ed by the di stri ct c ourt ’ s ove r s i ghta tthe pl e ahe a r i ng. I d. a t549.5

“ In eval uat i ng w hether adefe nd anthas s ho w n thathi s r i gh t s w er e su b st an t i al l y affected o r p rej u d i ced , [w e h av e] ex am i n ed th e th ree ‘core o b j ect i v es’ of R ul e 11, w hi c h a r e : ( 1) e ns ur i ng tha tthe gui l ty pl e ai s f r e e of c oe r c i on; ( 2) e ns ur i ng tha tthe de f

e nda ntunde r s t a nds the na tur e of the c ha r ge s a ga i ns thi m ; a nd ( 3 ) e n s u r in g th a t th e d e f e n d a n t is a w a r e o f

th e d ir e c t c o n s e q u e n c e s o f th e g u ilty p le a .” M o n r o e , 3 5 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 4 . I n M onr oe , w e di s c us s e d the pl a i n- e rr orc a s e of U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H ernand ez -F ra i re , 20 8 F . 3d 94 5, 95 1 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( fa i l ure t o sat i sf y thi rd core concern of R ul e 11). Id. at13 55 . In H ernand ez -F ra i re , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to i n fo rm th e d efen d an to f h i s ri g h t(1 ) t o p l ead n o tg u i l ty an d t o m ai n t ai n o r p ersi st i n th atp l ea, (2 ) t o th e assi st an ce o f co u n sel attri al , (3 ) t o co n fro n tan d cro sse x a m in e a d v e r s e w itn e s s e s a t tr ia l, a n d ( 4 ) a g a in s t c o m p e lle d s e lf - in c r im in a tio n . H e rn a n d e z - F r a ir e , 2 0 8 F .3 d a t 9 5 1 . I n h o ld in g th a t th e R u le 1 1 e rr o rin H ernand ez -F ra i re const i tut ed an al m ostt ot al fa i l ure t o add re ss “ ‘ the thi rd core c onc e rn of

R ul e 11’ tha tthe de f

e nda ntknow a nd unde r s t a nd the c ons e que nc e s of hi s gui l ty pl ea , ” w e e xp l ai ned thatthe defendantt ol d the di stri ctcourtatthatpl ea c ol l oquy tha the di d notknow hi s r i ght s , the c our tf a i l e d t o t e l l the de f

e nda ntabout h is v a r io u s r ig h ts , a n d th e d e f e n d a n t’s r ig h ts w e r e w a iv e d b y h is e n te r in g ag u ilty p le a . I d . a t 9 5 0 - 5 1 . T h e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s fai l u re t o ad v i se R am o s o f (1 ) h i s ri g h tag ai n st6

c om pe l l e d s e l f

- i nc r i m i na t i on, t o be r e pr e s e nt e d by c ouns e l a ttr i a l a nd e ve ry s t a ge of the pr oc e e di ng, t o c onf r onta nd c r os s - e xa m i ne w i tne s s e s , a nd t o t e s t i f y a nd p resen tev i d en ce; an d (2 ) th e m an d at o ry st atu t o ry m i n i m u m o f 1 2 0 m o n th s’ i m p r i s o n m e n t , d o e s n o ta m o u n tt o p l a i n e rr o rb e c au s e th e r e c o r d a s awh o l e s h o ws th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a d e q u a te ly a d d r e s s e d th e s e r ig h ts , a n d R a m o s f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e c o u rt’s e rr o rr e s u lte d in ato ta l o ra lm o s t to ta l f a ilu r e to a d d r e s s th e R u le 1 1 c o r e c o n c e rn o f R a m o s ’s ap p r e c ia tin g th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h is g u ilty p le a . Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we d isce rn n o re v er sib le er ro r. F o r th e a b o v e s tated re as o n s, w e a ff irm R am o s’s conv i ct i on and sent ence . AF F I RME D.