[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 19 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 1- cr-0 01 32 -J DW -MAP- 1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RIGOBERTO AVILA-SANTOYO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 16 , 20 12 ) Befo re PRYOR, JORDAN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-13195 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 Page: 1 of 11Ri go be rto Avi la -San to y o app eal s the de ni al of h is m ot io n t o wi th dr aw hi s

pl eas of g ui lt y

forreen te rin g fo ll owi ng hi s re m ov al fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s, 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( a), an d e nt eri ng th e Uni te d S ta te s i ll eg al ly, id . § 1 32 5( a)(1 ). Avi la San to y o a rg ue s tha t h is gu il ty ple as were unkno win g a ndin vo lu nt ary be cau se hi s at to rn ey fai le d t o a dv is e h im

to ch al le ng e co ll at eral ly an o rd er o f rem ov al th at Avi la -San to y o re qu es te d. Al th ou gh we affi rm th e d en ia l o f Avi la -San to y o’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw hi s p le a o f gu il ty, we rai se su a sp on te anis su e ab ou t a c le ric al erro r inth e rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on of t he m ag is tra te jud ge an d t he ord er o f th e d is tri ctco urt ad op ti ng th atreco m m en da ti on , andwe rem an d wi th in st ru ct io ns to co rrec t the erro r in th os e two ord ers . I. BACK GROUND In19 93 , two -y ear- ol d Av il a-Sa nt oyo, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof M ex ic o, en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s i ll eg al ly. In M arch 20 09 , aut ho rit ie s arres te d Av il aSan to y o i n F lo rid a. Avi la -San to y o s ti pu late d t o h is rem ov al , andanimm ig rat io n jud ge ord eredAvi la -San to y o re m ov edto Mex ic o. InJan uary

20 11 , off ic ers ap pr eh en de d Av il a-Sant oyo inTam pa , Flo rid a, an d l at er Av il a-Sa nt oyo was ch arg edwith t wo cr im es rel at edto hi s i ll eg al en try. Defen se co un se l i ns tru ct edAvi la -San to y o t o s eekadvi ce fr om animm ig rat io n at to rn ey ab ou t h is earl ie r rem ov al fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s, an d Av il a-Sa nt oyo’s 2 Case: 11-13195 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 Page: 2 of 11fam il y

rep orte d t o d efen se co un se l tha t “ no th in g c ou ldbe do ne .” Bas edon th at in fo rm at io n, d efen se co un se l advi se d Av il a-Sa nt oyo to pl eadgu il ty. Dur in g ach an ge of p le a h eari ng be fo re a m ag is tra te jud ge , Avi la -San to y o st at edth athe ha d c on su lt edwith c ou ns el an d tha t h e und ers to odth e el em en ts of th e two cri m es inhi s i nd ic tm en t an d h is pu ni sh m en t, wh ic h i nc lu de d d ep orta ti on aft er s erv in g h is sen te nc e. Avi la -San to y o a dm it te d t ha t h e h adreen te redth e Uni te d S tate s af

te r ha vi ng be ende po rte d a ndth athe ha d e nt eredth e co un try “ [a]t th e b or de r.” The m ag is tra te jud ge fou ndth atAvi la -San to y o was kn owi ng ly and vo lu nt ari ly ple ad in g g ui lt y an d t ha t the re was a factua l b as is forbo thgu il ty ple as . The m ag is tra te jud ge en te reda rep ort re co m m en di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt acce ptAvi la -San to y o’s p le a o f gu il ty “ to Co un t ONE (1 ) of th e in di ctm en t,” whi chch arg edAvi la -San to y o wi th be in g fo un d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s fo ll owi ng hi s de po rta ti on , 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a). Th e d is tri ctco urt ac cep te d Av il a-Sa nt oyo’s “pl ea of gu il ty . . . to C ou nt (s ) One of t he Ind ic tm en t,” a ndsch edul edth e m at te r fo r a se nt en ci ng he ari ng . Fi ve day s b efo re h is sen te nc in g h eari ng , Avi la -San to y o m ov edto withd raw hi s p le as of g ui lt y . Avi la -San to y o a ll eg edth at , aft er d efen se co un se l co nt act ed The Heart la ndAll ia nc e Nat io na l J us ti ce Ce nt er an d re vi ewedth e d eci si on in Uni te d S tate s v . Ram os , 62 3 F .3d67 2 (9 th Cir . 20 10 ), co un se l “ de ve lo pe d ago od 3 Case: 11-13195 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 Page: 3 of 11fai th reas on to be li ev e” tha t Av il a-Sa nt oyo h adbe ende ni eddu e p ro ces s dur in g h is

rem ov al pro ceed in g. Av il a-Sa nt oyo al le ge d t ha t h e h adbe enpre jud ic edby the pu rp orte d d en ia l o f du e p ro ces s b ecau se he “ arg uabl y qu al ifi ed ” fo r a can cel la ti on of rem ov al as a n a li enwho ha d re si de d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s co nt in uo us ly for m or e th anten y ears an d wh os e rem ov al wou ldres ul t i n aha rd sh ip to hi s re si de ntch il d. See 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9b (b )(1 ). Avi la -San to y o “ su gg es t[e d] th at‘ cl os e as si st an ce o f co un se l was av ai labl e,’” bu t tha t co un se l was in effe ct iv e. Avi la -San to y o a ll eg ed th atco un se l h ad“ li m it edkn owl ed ge ” o f imm ig rat io n l aw; a dv is edAvi la San to y o’s fa m il y

to m eetwith a n i m

m ig rat io n a tt orne y ; an d re li edon th e rep res en ta ti on s o f Avi la -San to y o’s fa m il y th at“ th ey

were ad vi se d n ot hi ng co ul d be do ne .” Avi la -San to y o a ls o a ll eg edth at , had“ co un se l kno wn ab ou t the . . . Cen te r an d h adth e ab il ity to co ns ul t wi th th em ” b efo re en try of the gu il ty ple a,

“ co un se l wo ul d h av e advi se d M r. Avi la -San to y o o f hi s l eg al op ti on to ch al le ng e th e in di ctm en t b y

way of aMo ti on to Dis m is s.” The di stric t co urt h el d asen te nc in g h eari ng du rin g wh ic h i t h eardev id en ce an d a rg um en t ab ou t Av il a-Sa nt oyo’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw. Duri ng th e h eari ng , Avi la -San to y o t es ti fie d tha t h e wan te d t o wi th dr aw hi s g ui lt y pl ea s o t ha t h e co ul d

“ ge t a wai ve r an d s ta y

inth e Uni te d S ta te s” an d “ be a fathe r to [hi s] dau gh te r.” On cr os s- ex am in at io n, Av il a-Sa nt oyo te st ifi edth athe ha d s ti pu late d t o b ei ng 4 Case: 11-13195 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 Page: 4 of 11rem ov edfro m th e Uni te d S ta te s af

te r co nf erri ng with a n a ge nc y

inCh ic ag o, Ill in oi s, an d d is cl os in g t o the ag en cy th athe was b ei ng de po rte d, am on g o th er reas on s, b ecau se of h is m em be rs hi p i n astreetga ng . Avi la -San to y o a ls o t es ti fie d th athe ha d re cei ve d c op ie s o f th e st ip ul at io n fo rm inbo th Eng li sh an d S pa ni sh ; h e ha d b eenrequi redto readth e fo rm an d h adbe enreadth e fo rm inSp an is h; he ha d un de rs to odth athe ha d wai ve d h is rig ht s t o ahe ari ng be fo re an im m ig rat io n ju dg e, to co un se l, an d t o p res en t ev id en ce; an d h e h adun de rs to odth athe wou ldbe de po rte d i m

m ed ia te ly. The di stric t co urt d en ie d o ral ly Avi la -San to y o’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw hi s p le a an d m en ti on edth at , eve n i f Avi la -San to y o was “ su cces sf ul inch al le ng in g t he Co un t On e d ep ortati on ord er, h e [wo ul d] st il l b e stuc k wi th th e fac ts un de rlyin g Co un t Two . . . whi chare n otch al le ng ed .” The d is tri ctco urt the n “ tu rn [ed ] to th e se nt en ci ng ” an d, af

te r id en ti fy in g Av il a-Sa nt oyo’s two cri m es , th e co urt s ta te d t ha t itha d a ccep te d a nd“ ad

jud ic at ed[Avi la -San to y o] gu il ty of th os e o ffen se s.” Th e di st ric t co urt s en te nc edAvi la -San to y o t o “ th ree years o f pr ob at io n.” The di stric t co urt l at er en te reda writ te n o rd er d en y in g Av il a-Sa nt oyo’s m ot io n a ndex pl ai ni ng th atAvi la -San to y o h adfai le d t o p ro ve , un de r th e fo ur fact or s i de nt ifi edinUni te d S tate s v . Buc kl es , 84 3 F .2d46 9, 4 72 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ), th ata “ fai r an d ju streas on ” ex is te d t o wi th dr aw hi s g ui lty pl ea. As t o t he fir st 5 Case: 11-13195 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 Page: 5 of 11fact or , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Av il a-Sa nt oyo “ rece iv edclo se ass is ta nc e o f

co un se l i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r to pl eadgu il ty” becaus e th e rec or d e st ab li sh ed th at“ th ere was no th in g d efi ci en t i n c ou ns el ’s per fo rm an ce wh ic h u nd erm in edth e kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry

na tu re o f [h is ] gu il ty ple a”; co un se l’s “ reco m m en da ti on th at[Avi la -San to y o] co nf er wi th animm ig rat io n a tt orne y [was ] co m

m en dabl e”; an d “ [t]he re was cert ai nl y no th in g p er s e d efi ci en t ab ou t d efen se co un se l re lying on th e in fo rm at io n p ro vi de d b y [Avi la -San to y o]’ s fa m il y .” W it h re sp ectto th e se co ndfact or , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Av il a-Sa nt oyo’s gu il ty ple a was kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry

as e st ab li sh edby Avi la -San to y o’s “ co nc e[s si on ] th atth ere [were ] no de fic ie nc ie s i n h is ch an ge of p le a co ll oquy”; h is fai lure t o m ak e a “ cl ai m [ab ou t] coe rci on or alac k o f un de rs ta nd in g a s t o h is gu il ty ple a” o r “ co nt en d t ha t he was m is advi se d b y

th e jud ge or h is att orne y on any m at te rs m at eri al to hi s gu il ty ple a”; an d t he ex is te nc e o f a “ factua l b as is forhi s p le a, as ev id en cedby his imm ig rat io n fi le an d t he st ip ul at edrem ov al ord er.” With reg ardto th e th irdfact or , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t “ th e im pa cton jud ic ia l re so ur ces wou ldno t b e te rri bl y si gn ifi can t, [b ut ] th e wit hd rawal of t he pl ea wo ul d n eces sa ril y res ul t i n a pr ol on ge d h eari ng on th e p ro po se d m ot io n t o d is m is s, an d i f un su cces sf ul , a tri al on th e m eri ts .” As t o t he fou rth an d fi na l fa ct or , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t “ [t]he Gov ern m en t wo ul d b e p reju di cedinha vi ng to de fen d a n i m mig rat io n p ro ceed in g 6 Case: 11-13195 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 Page: 6 of 11m or e th antwo y ears ol d, tran sc rip ts of wh ic h l ik el y do no t ex is t.” Th e d is tri ct co urt ru le d t ha t Av il a-Sant oyo fai le d t o “ id en ti fy an y sp eci fic gro un d fo r a co ll at eral att ackon hi s u nd erl y in g d ep orta ti on ord er, m uc h l es s an yth in g fund am en ta ll y

un fai r ab ou t tha t p ro ces s,” a ndhi s “ ho pe s t o l au nc h asu cces sf ul co ll at eral att ackon [hi s] dep orta ti on ord er an d re m ai n i n t hi s co un try,” di d n ot crea te “ a ‘fair an d ju streas on ’ fo r pe rm it ti ng [hi m ] to withd raw h is gu il ty ple a.” Inth e m ean ti m e, Avi la -San to y o m ov edto reo pe n h is rem ov al pro ceed in g. The Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s d et erm in edth atAvi la -San to y o’s m ot io n was un ti m el y an d t ha t the imm ig rat io n ju dg e la ck edjuri sd ic ti on to reo pe n the rem ov al pr oc eed in g, 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .23 (b )(1 ). See Najjar v . Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 83 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (jud ic ia l n ot ic e). The Bo ardals o d ecl in edsu a sp on te to reo pe n t he pro ceed in g. Id . 10 03 .2(a ). Avi la -San to y o’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w is pe nd in g b efo re thi s C ou rt. II . STANDARDS OF REVIEW W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o wi th dr aw a g ui lt y pl ea fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, an d “ [w]e will rev ers e [tha t] dec is io n . . . on ly if itis arb it rary or un reas on ab le .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Najj ar, 2 83 F.3d13 06 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ).

“ W e m ay su a sp on te rai se th e is su e o f cl eri cal erro rs inth e jud gm en t an d re m an d with i ns tru ct io ns th atth e d is tri ctco urt co rrec t the erro rs .” Uni te d S tate s v . 7 Case: 11-13195 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 Page: 7 of 11Mas se y , 44 3 F .3d81 4, 8 22 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . And ert on , 13 6

F.3 d 7 47 , 75 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) ). II I. DI SCUSSI ON W e ad dr es s two i ss ue s i n thi s ap pe al . Firs t, we ad dr es s Av il a-Sa nt oyo’s arg um en t tha t h e was en ti tl edto withd raw h is pl ea o f gu il t b ecau se , bu t fo r th e in effe ct iv en es s o f tr ia l co un se l, h e co ul d h av e ch al le ng edco ll at eral ly an un de rlyin g o rd er o f de po rta ti on . Seco nd , we add res s a c le ric al erro r th atwe no ti cedinth e rec or d. The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh enitde ni edAvi la San to y o’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw hi s g ui lt y pl ea. Avi la -San to y o’s ar gu m en ts an d ev id en ce fe ll well sh ort o f es tabl is hi ng “ a fai r an d ju streas on forreque st in g t he withd rawal .” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 11 (d )(2 )(B) . Avi la -San to y o fa il edto id en ti fy an y de fic ie nc y

th atwou ldha ve ren de redhi s p le as un kn owi ng or i nv ol un ta ry — o th er th anth e fai lu re o f co un se l t o a dv is e h im to ch al le ng e h is ord er o f rem ov al . Avi la San to y o c on ced edth athe rece iv edclo se ass is tanc e o f co un se l, an d t he di st ric t co urt was en ti tl edto fin d t ha t co un se l re as on ab ly reli edon th e rep res en ta ti on s o f Avi la -San to y o t ha t h e h adrece iv edleg al advi ce tha t a c ol la te ral ch al le ng e to hi s or de r of rem ov al wou ldbe fut il e. See St ric kl an d v . W as hi ng to n, 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 69 1, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 6 (1 98 4) (“ [W] he n ade fen da ntha s g iv enco un se l re as on 8 Case: 11-13195 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 Page: 8 of 11to be li ev e th atpu rs ui ng cert ai n i nv es ti ga ti on s wo ul d b e fru it le ss or e ve n h arm fu l,

co un se l’s fa il ur e to purs ue th os e in ve st ig at io ns m ay no t l at er b e ch al le ng edas un reas on ab le .”); see als o Un it edSta te s v . Peas e, 24 0 F .3d93 8, 9 41 –4 2 (1 1t h C ir. 20 01 ) (“ [W] e can no t s ay

as am at te r of

law tha t re li an ce o n acli en t’s s ta te m en ts is pe r se de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce.”) . Alth ou gh co un se l co nc ed edth athi s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , th e d is tri ctco urt was no t re qu ire d t o g iv e th atco nc es si on an y weig ht . See Wrig htv. Ho pp er, 1 69 F.3d69 5, 7 07 (11 thCir . 19 99 ) (“ Bec au se in effe ct iv en es s i s a que st io n wh ic h we m us t d eci de , adm is si on s o f de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce b y

att orne y s ar e n otde ci si ve .”) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Not ab ly, Avi la -San to y o fa il edto id en ti fy an y gro un d t o c ha ll en ge th e o rd er o f rem ov al as f

un da m en ta ll y

un fai r, se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Hol la nd , 87 6 F .2d15 33 , 15 36 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (ev al ua ti ng anord er o f de po rta ti on un de r Uni te d S ta te s v . Men do za-Lo pe z, 48 1 U.S. 8 28 , 10 7 S . Ct. 2 14 8 (1 98 7) ), whi chsupp orts th e fin di ng s o f th e d is tri ctco urt tha t g ran ti ng hi s m ot io n wo ul d was te jud ic ia l res ou rces an d p reju di ce the go ve rn m en t. Av il a-Sant oyo was no t en ti tl edto withd raw h is pl ea. W e n ot ic e a cl eri cal erro r in two ord ers in vo lv in g Av il a-Sa nt oyo’s gu il ty pl ea tha t re qu ire co rrec ti on . The wri tt enrep ort an d re co m m en da ti on of t he m ag is tra te jud ge an d t he ord er o f th e d is tri ctco urt ad op ti ng th e rec omm en da ti on 9 Case: 11-13195 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 Page: 9 of 11st at e m is take nl y th atAvi la -San to y o p le ad edgu il ty onl y to reen te rin g the Uni te d St at es aft er b ei ng rem ov ed . Thes e o rd ers co nf li ctwith t he an no un cem en t o f th e m ag is tra te jud ge at t he ch an ge of p le a h eari ng an d t he ora l p ro no un cem en t o f th e di st ric t co urt atsen te nc in g abo utacce pt in g t he gu il ty ple as an d a dju di cat in g Avi la -San to y o g ui lt y

of r een te rin g a fte r rem ov al an d e nt eri ng th e Uni te d S ta te s il le ga ll y . Add it io na ll y , th es e o rd ers co nf li ctwith t he fin al jud gm en t ad jud ic at in g Avi la -San to y o g ui lt y

of b ot h c rimes. Mo re i m po rtant ly, th e o rd ers co nf li ctwith th e tr an sc rip t o f Avi la -San to y o’s ch an ge of p le a h eari ng whi chest ab li sh es th athe pl ead edgu il ty to an d c on fes se d t o fa ct s es tabl is hi ng hi s g ui ltforbo th cri m es . Neit he r th e at to rn ey s n orth e d is tri ctco urt n ot ic edth e err oran d p ro ceed edas th ou gh Avi la -San to y o p le ad edgu il ty to b ot h c rimes, whi chco nf irms ou r co nc lu si on th atth e err or“ real ly [do es ] no t m ak e an y di ffer en ce,” Un it edSta te s v . Diaz , 19 0 F .3d12 47 , 12 53 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ), an d c on st itut es th e k in d o f cl eri cal erro r th atth e d is tri ctco urt ca n c orrectun de r Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 36 . Thatrul e p erm it s the di st ric t co urt “ atan y ti m e [t o] co rrec t a c le ric al erro r in a jud gm en t, o rd er, o r othe r pa rt o f th e rec or d, o r co rrec t an y erro r in th e rec or d ari si ng fro m

ov ers ig htor o mis si on .” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 36 . To en su re tha t the reco rdrefl ect s co rrec tl y

Avi la -San to y o’s p le as of g ui lt y an d c on vi ct io ns , we rem an d fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f co rrec ti ng th e err or s i n t he writte n re po rt and 10 Case: 11-13195 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 Page: 10 of 11reco m

m en da ti on of t he m ag is tra te jud ge an d t he ord er o f th e d is tri ctco urt ad op ti ng th e rec omm en da ti on . IV. CONCLUSI ON Altho ug h we AFFIRM Avi la -San to y o’s co nv ic ti on s fo r ree nt eri ng fo ll owi ng hi s re m ov al fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s an d e nt eri ng th e co un try ill eg al ly, we REMAND to th e d is tri ctco urt wi th in st ru ct io ns to co rrec t the cle ric al erro rs in two ord ers inth e rec or d. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WIT H I NSTRUCTI ONS.

11 Case: 11-13195 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 Page: 11 of 11