## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e19,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. C A R L O S B A L D E R A M A -I R IB E , al so know n as I l del fons o Si quei r os - G ar ci a, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 04- 4316

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t ri ct of

U t ah ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 3 - CR- 9 9 7 - 0 1 - DB)
S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: R aym ond P. M oor e, Feder al Publ i c D efe nderand V i cki M andel l
- K i ng, A s s i s t ant Feder al Publ i c D efe nder , D enver , C ol or ado, forD efe ndant
- A ppel l antC ar l os B a ld e ra m a -I ri b e . Paul M
. W arner , U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , and El i zabe thanne C. St evens , A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , Sal tL ake Ci ty , U t ah, forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee U ni t ed St at es o f A m e ri c a . B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.
EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge.W e gr ant ed B al der ama- I r i be’ s r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thout 1 o ra l a rg u m e n t. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f) a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 4 .1 (G ). 21 U
. S. C
. § 841( a) ( 1) m akes i t“unl aw ful foranyper s on know i ngl yand 2 in ten tio n a lly
. . . to m a n u fa c tu re , d istrib u te, o r d isp e n se , o r p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to m anufa ctur e, di s t r i but e, ordi s pens e, a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . ” 21 U
. S. C
. § 812 Schedul e I I I ( a) ( 3) m akes m ethamphet ami ne a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance . 18 U
. S. C
. § 2 fur t herpr ovi des t hat“[w ] hoevercomm i t s an offens e aga i ns tt he U ni t ed St at es or (c o n tin u e d ...) 2 I n t hi s di r ectcr i m i nal appea l , D efe ndant
- A ppel l antC ar l os B al der ama- I r i be chal l enges hi s m andat or yl i fe s ent ence i m pos ed fora drug tr aff i cki ng convi ct i on. 1 T he di s t r i ctcour tenhanc ed thi s s ent ence t o m andat or yl i fe i m pr i s onm entbas ed upon B al der ama- I r i be’ s t w o pr i orfel onydrug convi ct i ons . A l though B al der ama- I r i be conc edes t hatt he G overnm entgave hi m pr opernot i ce, as
r equi r ed under21 U
. S. C
. § 851( a) ( 1) , t hathe w as s ubj ectt o s uch an e nhance d
s ent ence , he as s ert s t hatt he pr os ecut ornegat ed thi s not i ce w hen the pr os ecut or
m i s t akenl yi ndi cat ed dur i ng a pr etr i al hear i ng thatB al der ama- I r i be w as i ns t ead
s ubj ectt o onl ya s t atut or ym andat or ym i ni m um t w enty - y ears ent ence . H avi ng juri sd ict ion u n d er 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 7 4 2 (a) an d 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1 , w e a ffirm B al der ama- I r i be’ s m andat or yl i fe s ent ence . I . BA CKGROUND T he U ni t ed St at es i ndi ct ed B al der ama- I r i be, a M exi can c i t i zen, on thr ee
c o u n ts: 1 ) p o ss e ss in g fif tyg ra m s o r m o re o f

m e th a m p h e tam in e , w ith th e in ten t to d istrib u te, 2 ) d istrib u tin g fiv e g ra m s o r m o re o f m e th a m p h e tam in e , b o th in
v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 2 a n d 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 1 2 , 8 4 1 (a )(1 ); a n d 3 ) illeg a lly 2(
. . . cont i nued) 2 a id s, a b e ts, c o u n se ls, c o m m a n d s, in d u c e s o r p ro c u re s its c o m m iss io n , is puni s habl e as a pr i nci pal , ” and “ [w ] hoeverw i l l ful l ycaus es an ac tt o be done w hi ch, i f di r ect l yper form ed byhi m oranotherw oul d be an offens e aga i ns tthe U ni t ed St at es , i s puni s habl e as a pr i nci pal
. ” In p erti n en t part, 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 2 6 (a) p rov ides fo r i m p ri so n m en t fo r 3 anyal i en w ho –

( 1) has been de ni ed admi s s i on, excl uded, deport ed, or r emoved orhas depart ed the U ni t ed S tat es w hi l e an or der of exc lusi on, deport at i on, orr emoval i s out s t andi ng, and t her eaf t er ( 2) ent er s , at t empt s t o ent er , or i s at anyt i m e found i n, the U nit ed S t at es, un l ess ( A ) pr i or t o h i s r eem barkatio n a t a pl ace o u ts i de the U ni t ed St at es orhi s appl i cat i on for admi s s i on fr o m for ei gn cont i guous t err i t or y , the A t t orney G ener al has expr es s l y cons ent ed t o s uch al i en’ s r eappl y i ng fo r a d m iss io n o r (B ) w ith re sp e c t to a n a li e n p re v io u sly d e n ied a d m iss io n a n d re m o v e d , u n les s s u c h a lien sh a ll es t ab l i s h t h a th e was n o tr e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n s u c h a d v a nce c o n s e n t u n d e r t h is c h a p te r o r a n yp ri o r A c t[ .] 3 r eent er i ng t he U ni t ed St at es aft erpr evi ous l ybei ng depor t ed, i n vi ol at i on of 8 U
. S. C
. § 1326. B eca us e B al der ama- I r i be had tw o pr i orfel onydrug tr aff i cki ng 3 convi ct i ons , he w as s ubj ectt o a “mandat oryt erm of l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i thout
re lea se ” o n th e first c o u n t. S e e 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A ). T h e G o v e rn m e n t, t her efor e, fi l ed an i nform at i on pur s uantt o 21 U
. S. C
. § 851( a) ( 1) not i fy i ng B al der ama- I r i be that , beca us e of thos e tw o pr i orfel onydrug convi ct i ons , “he may be s ubj ectt o i ncr eas ed puni s hm entpur s uantt o 21 U
. S. C
. § 841( b) ( 1) ( A )
. ” T h e G o v e rn m e n t filed th is § 8 5 1 in fo rm a tio n o n M a y1 0 , 2 0 0 4 . A m o n th l at er , on J une 16, 2004, t he di s t r i ctcourthel d a pr etr i al hear i ng. Pl ea4

negot i at i ons had bee n ongoi ng and the G overnm entand the courtexpec t ed that dur i ng t hi s hear i ng B al der ama- I r i be w oul d ent er a gui l ty pl ea. B al der ama- I r i be, how ever , i ns t ead c hos e t o pr ocee d t o tr i al
. A tt he end of t hatpr etr i al hear i ng, aft erB al der ama- I r i be had i ndi cat ed thathe w oul d notpl ead gui l ty , t he pr os ecut or
s t at ed:I ha v e o n e o ther thin g fo r th e c o u rt a n d fo r th e re co rd, y o u r H o n o r. Ac c o r d i n g t o t h e i n fo r ma t i o n th a tth e g o v e rn me n th a s , M r . Ba l d e r a ma qual i fi es as a ca ree r offenderunderthe s ent enci ng gui del i nes and, t herefor e, undert he gui del i nes w oul d begi n ata l evel 37, cr i m i nal h i s t o r yc a t e g o r ys i x , a n d h i s g u i d e l i n e r a n g e a tt h e p r e s e n tt i me , i f we pr ocee d t o t r i al , is 360 m onths t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . T he governm ent h a s fi l e d , b a s e d o n h i s p r i o ro ffe n s e s , d ru g tr a ffi c k i n g o ffe n s e s , a n d we have f i l ed an 851 e nhance m ent , y our H onor , w hi ch subj ect s hi m t o a 20 y ear m inimum m andat or y . H ow ever , obvi ous l yt he [pl ea] agr eement t hatt h e governm enthas m ade a nd ant i ci pat ed her e t odayw oul d have decr eas ed hi s s ent ence fr om 360 m onths t o, I bel i eve, 262 m onths , and th a t w a s o n e o f th e r e a s o n s th a t [ d e fe n se c o u n se l] a n d I trie d h a rd to h a v e t h i s a g r e e m e n tg o t h r o u g h h e r e t o d a y. ( E m phas i s added. ) W hi l e the pr os ecut or ’ s cal cul at i on of the s ent enci ng gui del i ne
ra n g e w a s a c c u ra te , h e m isst ated that B alde ram a-Iri b e w as su bject t o a m an d atory
m in im u m tw e n ty -y e a r se n ten c e in ste a d o f th e m a n d a to rylife se n ten c e re fe rre d to in th e § 8 5 1 in fo rm a tio n . A tt he conc l us i on of thathear i ng, t he di s tr i ctcourtgave Bal der ama- I r i be an addi t i onal t hi r t yday s t o cons i dert he G overnm ent ’ s pl ea offer , “t o pondert he p o ssibil itythat h e c o u ld b e fac ing 3 6 0 m o n ths to li fe if h e is fo u n d g u il tyat a jury t r i al
. ” D ur i ng t hi s t hi r t y - dayper i od, t he G overnm ents entdefe ns e couns el a l et t erT he G overnm entr eques t s t hatt hi s courtperm i ti tt o s uppl ementt he 4 appel l at e r ecor d w i t h the l ett er . B eca us e the l et t erw as nots ubm i t t ed t o the d istric t co u rt, h o w e v e r, th e a p p e llate ru les o rd in a rilyd o n o t p e rm it u s to in c lu d e it now i n t he r ecor d on appea l
. See Shoot i ng St arR anch, L L C v. U ni t ed St at es , 230 F. 3d 1176, 1177 n. 2 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( appl y i ng Fed. R
. A pp. P. 10( e) ) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. K enn edy , 22 5 F
. 3d 11 87 , 11 91 (10t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( sam e). N evertheles s, t hi s cour tdoes have “ an i nher entequi t abl e pow ert o s uppl ementt he r ecor d on appea l ” w i t h m at t er s t hatw er e notbefor e the di s tr i ctcourt . K ennedy , 225 F. 3d at 1 1 9 1 -9 2 ; s e e a ls o H a m m o n v . W a rd , 4 6 6 F .3 d 9 1 9 , 9 3 1 n .1 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). U ndert he ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, w e exe r ci s e thatauthor i tyand perm i tt he G overnm entt o s uppl ementt he appe l l at e r ecor d w i th thi s l et t er . See Li l e v. M cK une, 242 F. 3d 389 ( T abl e) , 2000 W L 1786357, at**1 n. 2 ( 10th C i r . D ec. 6, 2 0 0 0 ) (un p u b li sh ed ) (ex erc isi n g inh ere n t auth o ri tyto su p p lem en t app ell ate rec o rd w ith m a te ri a ls th a t w e re n o t b e fo re th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ). T he pr os ecut or ’ s l et t er , w r i t t en af t erhi s m i s s t at ementatt he pr etr i al h ea ri n g , clea rl yinfo rm s d efen se c o u n sel th at B alde ram a-Iri b e fac ed a m an d atory l i fe s ent ence i f convi ct ed on the fi r s tcount . T hi s l et t er , t her efor e, cl ar i fi ed any m isun d erstan d ing ca u sed b ythe p rose cu tor’s ea rl ier m isst atem en t. F u rth er, th ere w as n o rea so n fo r th e G o v ern m en t t o h av e inc lud ed this l ett er in the rec o rd b efo re th e d istric t co u rt b e c a u se B a ld e ra m a -Irib e n e v e r o bjec ted in th e d istric t co u rt to th e m a n d a to ry life s e n te n c e im p o s e d a f te r t h e p ro s e c u to r’ s m is s ta te m e n t. M o reo v er, i n o rde r t o su cc ee d o n ap p ea l un d er the p lai n -error stan d ard , see inf ra Sect i on I I , B al der ama- I r i be mustconvi nce us t hathi s m andat or yl i fe “ s ent ence im p lica tes th e k in d o f f u n d a m e n tal fa irn e ss iss u e s n e c e ss a ryto sa tisf yth e fo u rth p lai n -error p ron g . ” U n it ed S tat es v . S ierra-C asti ll o , 4 0 5 F
. 3 d 9 3 2 , 9 4 2 (10 th C ir
. 2005)
. I n l i ghtof that , B al der ama- I r i be ca nnotcompl ai n i f thi s courtgoes bey ond t he di s t r i ctcour tr ecor d i n t hes e ci r cumst ance s t o det erm i ne w hethert he im p o s itio n o f

a m a n d a to ry life s e n te n c e w a s , in fa c t, u n fa ir
. 5 s peci fi cal l yr ei t er at i ng t hatB al der ama- I r i be fa ced a m andat or yl i fe s ent ence : 4 I am w r i t i ng t o m emori al i ze our t el ephone conver s at i on of thi s m orni ng in w h ic h I i n fo rm ed y o u that y o u r cli en t w o u ld b e fac ing a m an d atory l i fe s e n t e n c e i f h e i s c o n v i c t e d a t tr i a l
. As I i n d i c a t e d , u n d e r 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) , l i fe i mp r i s o n me n ti s ma n d a t o ryi f a d e fe n d a n th a s two pr i ordrug fel ony convi ct i ons w hi ch have been al l eged i n an i nform at i on file d u n d e r 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 1
. U l t i m at el y , B al der ama- I r i be dec l i ned t o ent eri nt o a pl ea a gr eement . I ns t ead, heO n appea l , B al der ama- I r i be as s er t s t hat , w hi l e the PSR i ndi cat ed thatt he 5 m a x im u m se n ten c e h e fa c e d w a s life im p riso n m e n t, th e P S R n e v e r sta ted th a t th is l i fe s ent ence w as m andat or y . I n fac t , t he PSR di d both. O n i t s fi r s tpage, t he PSR i ndi cat ed thatl i fe i m pr i s onm entw as t he maxi m um s ent ence avai l abl e on countone and then l at eron t hats ame page the PSR s t at ed thatl i fe i m pr i s onm ent w a s th e “ m a n d a to ry m in im u m ” s e n te n c e a v a ila b le o n th a t s a m e c o u n t. 6 e le c te d to g o to tr ia l, w h e re a ju ry c o n v ic te d h im o n a ll th re e c o u n ts . I n pr epar at i on fors ent enci ng, a pr obat i on offi cerpr epar ed a pr es ent ence rep o rt(“P S R ”) w h ich in d icated that B alde ram a-Iri b e w as su bject t o a statuto ry
ma n d a t o r ymi n i mu m l i fe s e n t e n c e , wi th n o s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , o n c o u n to n e . On 5 N o v e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , p rio r to se n ten c in g , the G o v e rn m e n t ex p licitlyre itera ted in
w r i t i ng t hatB al der ama- I r i be’ s s ent ence pur s uantt o the G overnm ent ’ s not i ce
u n d er 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § 8 5 1 w as a m an d atoryli fe sen tenc e. In the “G o v ern m en t’ s Posi t i on w i t h R es pectt o Sent enci ng Fact or s , ” fi l ed w i th the courtand s erved on defe ndant ’ s couns el , t he G overnm ents ai d t he [PSR ] m akes r efe r ence t o a s t atut or i l yr equi r ed mi ni m um s ent ence , butdoes notel abor at e on thatr efe ren ce . T he governm entw oul d r efe r the C o u rtto 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(A ) w h ich p rov ides fo r a m an d atory l i fe s ent ence i f t he defendanthas pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed of tw o drug fel oni es . T he governm entfi l ed not i ce r egar di ng appl i cat ion of that s t atut or ypr ovi s i on pur s uantt o 21 U
. S. C
. § 851, r el y i ng on drug fel ony i nci dent s w hi ch occ ur r ed on M ar ch 25, 1991, and N ovember7, 1995. B as ed on defen dant ’ s tw o pr i ordrug fel onyconvi ct i ons and the governm ent ’ s not i ce r egar di ng thos e convi ct i ons under21 U
. S. C
. § 851, it is th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p o sitio n th a t th e m a n d a to ry se n ten c e in th is m a tte r, a s re fe rr e d to in [ th e P S R ], i s life in p ri s o n . B alde ram a-Iri b e d id n o t object t o the m an d atoryli fe sen tenc e, eith er b efo re
ordur i ng s ent enci ng. A cknow l edgi ng thats uch a s ent ence w as m andat ory , t he7

d is tr ic t c o u rt im p o s e d a life s e n te n c e o n c o u n t o n e . I I . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW B eca us e B al der ama- I r i be di d notobj ecti n the di s tr i ctcourtt o the
m andat or yl i fe s ent ence , t hi s courtr evi ew s t hats ent ence forpl ai n err or . See Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 52( b) ( “A pl ai n err ort hataffect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s m aybe
c o n s id e re d e v e n th o u g h it w a s n o t b ro u g h t to th e c o u rt ’s a tte n tio n .” ). B al der ama- I r i be conc edes t hi s i s t he pr operr evi ew s t andar d. U nderpl ai n- err or
re v ie w , b efo re a n a p p ell ate c o u rtca n co rrect an erro r no t r aised at tri al, there m ustbe (1) error , (2) t hat i s p l ai n, and (3) that affe ct s sub st anti al ri gh t s. If a ll th re e c o n d iti o n s a re m e t, an a p p e llate c o u rt m a yth e n e x e rc ise its d isc re tio n to n o tice a fo rfe ited e rro r, b u t o n lyif (4 ) th e e rro r s e r io u sly a ffe c t s t h e fa i r n e s s , i n t e g r i ty , o rp u b l i c r e p u t a t i o n o f j u d i ci al proceed i ng s. U nit ed S t at es v. C ott on , 53 5 U
. S
. 62 5, 63 1 (200 2) ( qu otat i on s, ci t at i on s, alt era ti o n s o m itted). B alde ram a-Iri b e b ea rs th e b u rde n o f e stab li sh ing that there
w as pl ai n err orw arr ant i ng r el i ef. See U ni t ed St at es v. B ruce, 458 F. 3d 1157, 1165 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) , cert . deni ed, 127 S. C t . 999 ( 2007) ; U ni t ed St at es v. H a rl o w , 4 4 4 F .3 d 1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). III . A N A L Y S IS B egi nni ng w i t h t he fi r s tpl ai n- err ori nqui ry , w e conc l ude ther e w as no err or in th is c a se . 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 1 (a )(1 ) p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: N o per s on w ho s tands convi ct ed of a n offe ns e undert hi s parts hal l be s ent ence d t o i ncr eas ed puni s hm ent by r eas on of one orm o re p ri orA tt he t i m e of Bal der ama- I r i be’ s s ent enci ng and dur i ng the t i m e that 6 br i efi ng t ook pl ace i n t hi s appea l , t hi s courtt r eat ed compl i ance w i th § 851( a) ( 1) to b e ju ri s d ic tio n a l. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . F lo w e rs , 4 6 4 F .3 d 1 1 2 7 , 1 1 3 0 & n .1 ( 10t h C i r . 2006)
. B utw e have s i nce he l d that§ 851( a) ( 1) ’ s r equi r ement s ar e not j ur i s di ct i onal
. See Fl ow er s , 464 F. 3d at1129- 30. T o the ext entt hat B al der ama- I r i be’ s ar gum ent s on appea l t r eatt he § 851 i nform at i on as ju ri s d ic tio n a l, th e re fo re , th e ya re n o lo n g e r a v a ilin g . 8 convi ct i ons , unl es s befor e tr i al , orbefor e entry of a pl ea of gui l ty , the U ni t ed St at es at t orneyfi l es an i nform at i on w i th the court( and s erves a copyof s uch i nform at i on on t he per s on o r counse l forthe per s on) s ta tin g in w ri tin g th e p re v io u s c o n v ic tio n s to b e re lie d u p o n . A di s t r i ctcourt cannot i m pos e an enhanc ed sent ence unl es s the G overnm entcompl i es
w i t h § 851( a) ’ s r equi r ement s . See U ni t ed St at es v. L aB ont e, 520 U
. S. 751, 754 n. 1, 759- 60 ( 1997)
. B al der ama- I r i be conc edes thatthe i nform at i on the G overnm entfi l ed 6 i n t hi s cas e me t § 8 5 1 (a)(1)’ s r equi r ement s . G ener al l yonce § 851 not i ce i s gi ven, t hati s s uffi ci entt o s at i s fythe s t atut e. C f. U n it ed S ta t es v. W i l l i s , 102 F. 3d 1078, 1 0 8 5 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( a p p l y i n g 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 5 9 , w h i c h i n c o rp o r a t e s 2 1 U. S
. C. § 851( a) , and not i ng G overnm ent di d not have t o r efi l e § 851 n o ti ce aft er G o v ern m en t fi led a su p erse d ing ind ict m en t o r af ter rem an d fo r retri al, cit ing ca ses). A nd t her e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t o s ugges t that the p rosec ut or , dur i ng the pr etr i al hear ing , w as i n anyw ayt r y i ng t o w i thdr aw the ea r l i er§ 851 i nform at i on. U nder t hes e ci r cumst an ce s, t he pr os ecut or ’ s s i ngl e, br i ef mi s s t at ementm ade dur i ng t he pr etr i al hear i ng w as notenough t o undo the cl ear not i ce pr ovi ded by the ea r l i er§ 851 in fo rm ati o n . B alde ram a-Iri b e c an d idlyad m it s h e h as n o ca se law to the co n tr a ry. E v e n if w e c o u ld sa yth is w a s p lain e rro r, h o w e v e r, an d e v e n if th is p lain9

erro r affe cted B alde ram a-Iri b e’s su b stan ti al ri g h ts, the fo u rth p lai n -error inq u iry
re q u ir e s u s to c o n s id e r w h e th e r w e s h o u ld e x e rc is e o u r d is c re tio n to g ra n t r e lie f
. See C ot t on, 535 U
. S. at631. W e ca n do s o onl yi f the err ors er i ous l yaffect ed the fai r nes s , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . See i d. T hatw as
n o t th e c a s e h e re . T he purpos e of a § 851 i nform at i on i s t o “not i fythe defendantof the governm ent ’ s i nt ent i on t o us e a pr i oroffe ns e t o enhanc e hi s s ent ence , ” U ni t ed St at es v. V aughn, 370 F. 3d 1049, 1055 ( 10th C i r . 2004) , and t o “gi ve the defe ndantan oppor tuni t yt o es t abl i s h ei therthathe had notbeen c onvi ct ed of the
cr i m es t he governm entr el i es upon fort he s ent ence enhanc ementort hatt he
c o n v ic tio n s d o n o t q u a lif ya s th e typ e s a tis f

y in g th e e n h a n c e m e n t r e q u ir e m e n ts ,” W i l l i s , 102 F. 3d at1085; s ee a l s o 21 U
. S. C
. § 851( b) , ( c) ( pr ovi di ng pr ocedur es
w her ebya defendantcan c hal l enge a pr i orconvi ct i on on w hi ch G overnm ents eeks t o enhanc e a s ent ence )
. A ddi t i onal l y , § 851 not i ce e nabl es t he defendantt o m ake an i nform ed choi ce a boutw hethert o pl ead gui l tyorgo t o tr i al
. See U ni t ed St at es
v. T hom ps on, 473 F. 3d 1137, 1145 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , cert . deni ed, 127 S. C t . 2155 (2 0 0 7 ). A ll th e s e p u rp o s e s w e re s e rv e d in B a ld e ra m a -I ri b e ’s c a s e . B al der ama- I r i be has neverchal l enged the exi s t ence of hi s t w o pr i orfel ony drug convi ct i ons nort hei rappl i cat i on under21 U
. S. C
. § 841( b) ( 1) ( A )
. C f. U ni t ed St at es v. L opez- G ut i err ez, 83 F. 3d 1235, 1246- 47 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( concl udi ng t r i al cour t ’ s fai l ur e t o compl yw i th § 851( b) , r equi r i ng s ent enci ng10

cour tt o i nqui r e ats ent enci ng w hetherdefe ndantaff i r m ed ordeni ed hi s pr i or convi ct i ons , w as harm l es s err orw her e defendantdi d notas s er tthathe w oul d have chall eng ed those pri or conv i ct i on s had tr i al cou rtasked a nd w here defen se att o rne yco n ce d ed v ali d ityo f th e p ri o r co n v ict ion s). Fur t her , t he § 851 i nform at i on gave Bal der ama- I r i be cl earnot i ce thathe fa c e d a m a n d a to ry life s e n te n c e if c o n v ic te d o n c o u n t o n e . H e c o n c e d e s th is
. B al der ama- I r i be w as t hus w el l aw ar e thathe fa ced a m andat or yl i fe s ent ence at t he t i m e he r ej ect ed the governm ent ’ s pl ea offerdur i ng the pr etr i al hear i ng, b e fo re th e p ro s e c u to r’ s m is s ta te m e n t. A ft erB al der ama- I r i be r ej ect ed the G overnm ent ’ s pl ea offer , t he pr os ecut or di d m ake thats i ngl e, br i ef mi s s t at ement , i ndi cat i ng B al der ama- I r i be fa ced a
s ta tu to ry m in im u m tw e n ty-y e a r s e n te n c e in s te a d o f a m a n d a to ry life s e n te n c e . B utt her e i s s i m pl yno i ndi cat i on i n the r ecor d thatt hi s m i s s t at ementi n anyw ay
m i s l ed B al der ama- I r i be i nt o bel i evi ng he w as notfac i ng a mandat oryl i fe
s ent ence . I m m edi at el yaft ert he pr os ecut or ’ s m i s s t at ement , defe ns e couns el i nform ed the courtt hatdefe ns e couns el had gone overal l of the enha ncement s and the ca r eero ffenderpr ovi s i ons w i t h [B al der ama- I r i be] w hen w e w er e fi r st n egot i at i ng t hi s pl ea agr eement , and att hatt i m e i tw as m yunder s t andi ng t hathe w oul d ent er i nt o t he pl ea a gr eement , gi ven the s i tuat i on. A t thi s t i m e he has deci ded n o t to d o th a t an d to g o fo rw a rd w ith th e trial. I b e li e v e h e is f u lly a w a re o f

th o s e c o n s e q u e n c e s . (E m p h asis ad d ed
. )11

E v e n if th e p ro se c u to r’s m iss tate m e n t m isle d B a ld e ra m a -Irib e , itw o u ld h a v e o n ly d o n e s o to th e m a n d a to ry m in im u m n a tu re o f th e life s e n te n c e h e fa c e d
. E ven the mi s s t at ementcl ear l yi ndi cat ed thatB al der ama- I r i be fa ced a m axi m um life s e n te n c e . M o reo v er, an yco n fu sion that m igh t hav e b ee n cre ated as to the m an d atory
m i ni m um natur e of thatl i fe s ent ence w as di s pel l ed byt he pr os ecut or ’ s l et t er
e x p licitlysta tin g th a t B a ld e ra m a -Irib e fa c e d a m a n d a to rylife se n ten c e if convi ct ed on countone. T he pr os ecut ors entt hi s l et t erdur i ng the addi t i onal t hi r t y - dayper i od t he di s t r i ctcourtgave Bal der ama- I r i be t o cons i dert he G o v ern m en t’ s p lea a g ree m en t fu rth er. T h a t B a ld e ra m a -Irib e k n e w th a t h e fa c e d a m a n d a to rylife se n ten c e if
con vict ed o n co un ton e i s bols t ered byt he fa ctt hat he nev er obj ect ed o r otherw i se expr es s ed s urpr i s e w hen the PSR and then the G overnm ent ’ s pr es ent enci ng sta tem e n t in d ica ted h e w a s s u bjec t to a m a n d a to rylife se n ten c e . N o r d id B alde ram a-Iri b e p rotest du ri n g the s en tenc ing p roc ee d ing w h en the d istri ct co u rt i m pos ed s uch a s ent ence . U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , t her e i s no i ndi cat i on that t he pr os ecut or ’ s s i ngl e, br i ef mi s s t at ementdur i ng the pr etr i al hear i ng m i s l ed B a ld e ra m a -I ri b e in to b e lie v in g h e w a s n o t s u bje c t to a m a n d a to ry life s e n te n c e . B eca us e the § 851 i nform at i on i n thi s cas e s erved the purpos es i tw as i nt ended t o s erve, des pi t e the pr os ecut or ’ s br i ef mi s s t at ement , B al der ama- I r i be has fai l ed t o s how t hatt he mandat or yl i fe s ent ence t he di s tr i ctcourti m pos ed12

affected t he fa i rness , i ntegr i t y , or pub l i c reput at i on of these j ud i ci al proceed i ng s,
s ee Cot t on, 535 U
. S. at631. I V. CO NC L US I ON W e , th e re fo re , A F F IR M B a ld e ra m a -I ri b e ’s m a n d a to ry life s e n te n c e .