IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50071

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee

v.

DUSTY WAYNE HAYNES,

Defendant–Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:17-CR-180-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Dusty Wayne Haynes pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute and to distribute 50 grams or more of actual 

methamphetamine, and he received the statutory minimum sentence of 120 

months in prison. On appeal, Haynes argues that his guilty plea was not 

knowing and voluntary because he denied engaging in a conspiracy with his 

named coconspirator, who had provided the only information relied upon by 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 13, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50071 Document: 00514721612 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2018
No. 18-50071

2

the Government to obtain a drug quantity exceeding 50 grams of actual 

methamphetamine. He maintains that had he realized this fact, he would have 

insisted on going to trial or would have negotiated a better plea deal within a 

lower statutory sentencing range.

As the Government notes, Haynes did not object to the voluntariness of 

his plea in the district court. Additionally, his statements made in the district 

court and at his sentencing proceedings were not sufficient to put the court on 

notice that he was disputing the voluntariness of his plea to a conspiracy 

involving 50 grams of actual methamphetamine. See United States v. 

Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270, 272-73 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we 

review his contentions for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 131-43 (2009); United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 62-74 (2002). To 

establish plain error, Haynes must show a forfeited error that is clear or 

obvious, meaning not subject to reasonable dispute, and that affects his 

substantial rights. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. If he makes such a showing, 

this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it “seriously affects 

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

(internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).

In order for a plea to be knowing and voluntary, a defendant must have 

notice of the nature of the charges, he must understand the consequences of 

the plea, and he must understand the nature of the constitutional rights he is 

waiving by pleading guilty. United States v. Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d 361, 366 

(5th Cir. 2014). Haynes’s challenge is to his understanding of the nature of the 

charge against him. At rearraignment, when defense counsel indicated that 

Haynes did not believe he had conspired with his named codefendant, the 

magistrate judge explained a conspiracy in more detail and advised him that 

he was not guilty if he had not participated in a conspiracy. Haynes indicated 

 Case: 18-50071 Document: 00514721612 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2018
No. 18-50071

3

that he understood and entered his plea, with no further equivocation on his 

understanding; his solemn declarations are entitled to presumption of verity. 

See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977).

In addition, although defense counsel disputed the recitation in the 

factual basis of a drug quantity reported by the codefendant to law 

enforcement, the record makes clear that the objection was made in order to 

preserve a challenge for sentencing purposes. Also, although Haynes 

expressed some confusion at sentencing about the relevant drug quantity, the 

record reflects that the confusion arose over the relevant quantity of actual 

methamphetamine, which was the basis for a defense objection to the 

guidelines calculations, and the quantity of a mixture or substance containing 

methamphetamine, which was used by the probation officer in calculating the 

base offense level. Contrary to Haynes’s assertion, the transcript does not 

reflect that he believed that he had pleaded guilty to an offense involving a 

mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, which would have 

resulted in a lower statutory sentencing range.

Haynes has not established an error, much less a clear or obvious error, 

relating to the voluntariness of his plea. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; UriasMarrufo, 744 F.3d at 366. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 18-50071 Document: 00514721612 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/13/2018