FILED U.S. COURT OF AP PEALS ELEV ENT HC IR C U IT APRIL 25 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [ 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- 15034 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 6 0 0 3 1 - CR- W PD 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 W I L L I A M J E S U S B R A N D E L - M E N A , a .k .a . W illia m B o n illa , D e fe 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 forthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 25, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , 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 f t e rpl e a di ng gui l t y , W i l l i a m J e s us B r a nde l - M e naa ppe a l s hi s c onvi c t i onOnApri l 28, 19 96 , B rande l- Mena wa s deporte d after b e ingc onvic te d inLos An g e le s, 1 California of posse ssion of cocaine basewith intent to sell. On M ar ch 3 , 1 9 9 9 , h e wa s deported ag ain af ter being c onvicted in Los Ang eles of possession of heroin with intent to sell. On April 30, 2003, Brandel- Mena w as deported af ter being c onvicted in North Lauderdale, Florida of lew d and lascivious molestation of a per son six teen year s old. 2 a nd s e nt e nc e fori l l e ga l r e e ntr y i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s a f t e rde por t a t i on, i n vi ol a t i on o f 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) a n d ( b ) ( 2 ) . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D P ri or t o t hi s c as e, B ra nd el -M ena, a nati ve and ci t i ze n o f H on du ra s, w as conv i ct ed i n t he U ni t ed S t at es for f el on y nar cot i cs offe nses t w o t i m es and d eport ed thr e e t i m e s . B r a nde l - M e na ’ s l a s tde por t a t i on oc c ur r e d i n 2003. I n J a nua r y 2005, 1 B r a n d e l- M e n aw a s a r r e s te d in F o r t L a u d e r d a le , F lo r id aa n d p le d g u ilty to as ta te offe nse of posse ss i on of cocai ne. A fe d e r a l g r a n d ju r y in d ic te d B r a n d e l- M e n ao f k n o w in g ly a n d u n la w f

u lly r e e nt e r i ng the U ni t e d S t a t e s , a f t e rha vi ng be e n pr e vi ous l y r e m ove d, w i thoutthe e xpr e s s c ons e ntof

the A tt or ne y G e ne r a l , i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326( a ) a nd ( b ) ( 2 ) . T h e in d ic tm e n t e x p r e s s ly r e fe r r e d to § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) , w h ic h p r o v id e s th a t, if an al i en’ s pre vi ou s r em ov al w as “ subsequentt o a conv i cti on for c om m i ss i on of an ag g rav at ed fel o n y, ” th e al i en i s su bj ectt o a m ax i m u m o f t w en t y years’ i m pri sonm ent . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(b)(2). A t h is p le ah e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e x p la in e d to B r a n d e l- M e n ath a t h is3

i ndi c t e d of

fe ns e ha d am a xi m um pe na l t y of t w o y e a r s , buttha t , i f

the gove r nm e nt pr ove d a ts e nt e nc i ng tha tB r a nde l - M e naha d apr i ora ggr a va t e d fe l ony c onvi c t i on, hi s m axi m um se nt ence coul d b e t w ent y y ea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent . In re spon se , B r a nde l - M e nai ndi c a t e d tha the unde r s t ood tha t , i f the gove r nm e ntpr ove d hi s pr i or c onvi c t i ons , he fa c e d apos s i bl e t w e nt y - y e a rs e nt e nc e . L a t e ri n the pl e ahe a r i ng, the di stri ctcourtagai n asked B ra nd el -M ena w hether he und er st oo d t he t w ent y- ye ar m a x im u m p e n a lty if

B r a n d e l- M e n ah a d ap r io ra g g r a v a te d fe lo n y c o n v ic tio n . B ra nd el -M ena r es po nd ed thathe un ders t oo d. T he di stri ctcourtas ked w hether B ra nd el -M ena w as ho pi ng ei ther thatthe courtw ou l d g i ve hi m a bre ak at se nt enci ng or thatthe S up re m e C ou rtw ou l d o verr ul e A l m endarez -T orre s v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 523 U . S . 224, 118 S . C t . 1219 ( 1998) , a nd B r a nde l - M e naa gr e e d. T h e g o v e r n m e n t s u m m a r iz e d th e fa c tu a l b a s is fo rB r a n d e l- M e n a ’s g u ilty pl ea , i ncl ud i ng thatB ra nd el -M ena w as depo rt ed af t erse vera l fe l on y nar cot i cs c onvi c t i ons . B r a nde l - M e na ’ s c ouns e l s t i pul a t e d t o the gove r nm e nt ’ s s um m a r y of the fa c t s , but“ r e s e r ve [ d] the r i ghtt o e xa m i ne a nd c ha l l e nge the pr i or s . ” T he di stri ctcourtthen fou nd thatthe go vernm ent ’ s s t i pu l at ed fa ctual basi s w as “s u f f ic ie n t to c o n s titu te th e c r im e o f ille g a l r e e n tr y a f

te rd e p o r ta tio n s u b s e q u e n t to a n a ggr a va t e d fe l ony c onvi c t i on . . . . ” T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n a s ke d B r a nde l - M e na i f i tw as “ sti l l [hi s] desi re t o p l ea d g ui l t y a s pre vi ou sl y a nn ou nced . . . , ” t o w hi ch4

B ra nd el -M ena r es po nd ed, “ Y es . ” A l s o dur i ng the pl e ac ol l oquy , the di s tr i c tc our ti nfor m e d B r a nde l - M e na tha t , by pl e a di ng gui l t y , he w a s gi vi ng up the r i ghtt o atr i a l by j ur y , t o c onf r ont w i t ness es , t o com pel w i t ness es and t o rem ai n si l ent . T he di stri ctcourtexpl ai ned tha t , by pl e a di ng gui l t y , B r a nde l - M e naw oul d a l s o be gi vi ng up a ny de fe ns e s he c oul d ha ve pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l . B r a nde l - M e naa c know l e dge d tha the w a nt e d t o gi ve up thos e r i ght s a nd pl e a d gui l t y . T he di s tr i c tc our tfound tha tB r a nde l - M e na vol unt a r i l y a nd i nt e l l i ge nt l y e nt e r e d hi s gui l t y pl e aa nd tha the unde r s t ood the nature of the charges agai nsthi m and t he consequences of hi s pl ea . T h e p resen t en ce i n v est i g at i o n rep o rt(“ P S I”) setB ran d el -M en a’ s b ase offe nse l evel at8. S ee U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2. T he P S I r ec om m ended a si xt ee n-l evel i ncre as e, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2(b)(1)(A )( i i ), du e t o h i s deport ati on af t er fe l ony c onvi c t i ons forpos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o s e l l c oc a i ne ba s e a nd he r oi n. T he P S I not e d, a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha ti n 1996 B r a nde l - M e naw a s a r r e s t e d fora nd pl ed gu i l t y t o p osse ss i on of cocai ne base w i th i nt entt o sel l and t hati n 1 99 7 h e w as a r r e s t e d fo ra n d p l e d g u i l t y t o p o s s e s s i o n o f h e r o i n w i th i n t e n tt o s e l l . Th e PSI r e c o m m e n d e d ath r e e - le v e l d e c r e a s e fo ra c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility , p u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1. W i th a t ot al offe nse l evel of 21 and a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory o f V I, th e P S I’ s reco m m en d ed ad v i so ry G u i d el i n es ran g e w as 7 7 t o 9 6 m o n th s’Be causeBrandel- Mena did not objec t to the factual portions of the P SI relating to his prior 2 felony drugconvictions, he has admitted those fac ts. See United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11 Cir. 2005).

th Brandel- Mena is als o kn own as Willi am B onilla, and the district court referre d to him as 3 s u chatth e p l eah eari n g an dats en ten ci n g. 5 i m pri sonm ent . B ra nd el -M ena di d n otfi l e w ri tt en obj ec t i on s t o the P S I. 2 A t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , B r a n d e l- M e n ad id n o t d is p u te th e e x is te n c e o f h is p r io rfe lo n y d r u g c o n v ic tio n s o rth a t th e y w e r e a g g r a v a te d fe lo n ie s . H e a ls o d id notdi s put e the fa c tua l a c c ur a c y of the P S I orobj e c tt o the P S I ’ s r e c om m e nde d 16- l evel G ui del i nes e nh ance m entbase d o n h i s pri or fe l on y drug con vi cti on s. R ather, B r a n d e l- M e n ao bje c te d s o le ly to th e u s e o f h is p r io rfe lo n y d r u g c o n v ic tio n s to i nc r e a s e the s t a tut or y m a xi m um s e nt e nc e . T he di s tr i c tc our tove r r ul e d the obj e c t i on. D uri ng al l ocut i on , B ra nd el -M ena a po l og i ze d for re ent er i ng the U ni t ed S t at es i l l egal l y, bu tst at ed thathe w as never i nform ed thati tw ou l d b e i l l egal t o ree nt er on ce he w as depo rt ed. In re spon se , the di stri ctcourtas ked B ra nd el -M ena w hether he w i shed t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l t y pl ea , t o w hi ch he answ er ed thathe di d n ot , as fo l l o w s: T H E C O U R T : S o, M r . B oni l l a , w ha ty ou a r e s a y i ng m a y be c o u ld b e ad e fe n s e to th is c h a r g e . M a y b e y o u w a n t to m o v e to wi th d r a w y o u rp l e aa n d we wi l l s e e wh a tMr . R a m o s h a s t o s a y . Or m a y be y ou w a ntt o thi nk a boutw ha ty ou ha ve be e n s a y i ng. 3 L e t m e p u t th e c a s e o n r e c a ll fo ras e c o n d a n d g iv e M r . B o n illa a ch an ce t o t al k t o M r. M ark s.6 ( P a u s e .) M R . M A R K S : T hank you, Y ou r H on or, for the t i m e t o con fe r w i th M r. B on i l l a. W e a re prepare d t o g o forw ar d w i th t he se nt enci ng . H e does n o t d e s ir e to w ith d r a w - - o rm a k e am o tio n to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty pl ea . T H E C O U R T : Y o u u n d e r s ta n d , M r . B o n illa , th a t y o u c o u ld have as ked you r l aw ye r t o fi l e am ot i on t o w i thd ra w your gu i l t y pl ea sayi n g th atyo u d i d n ’ tk n o w yo u co u l d n ’ tco m e b ack t o th i s co u n try, a n d i f I g r a n t e d th e m o t i o n t o wi th d r a w y o u rg u i l t y p l e a , th e n we w ou l d g o t o tri al on the ca se , and i f y ou ar e fou nd no tgu i l t y, then t hat w oul d be the e nd of

the c a s e ? I f

y ou pe r s i s tw i th y ourgui l t y pl e a , y ou c a n ’ tc o mp l a i n l a t e ro n a b o u tn o tb e i n g t o l d th a ty o u c o u l d n ’ tc o me b a c k to th e c o u n tr y . D o y o u u n d e r s ta n d th a t? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es. T H E C O U R T : A n d th is is w h a t y o u w a n t to d o , p e r s is t w ith your gu i l t y pl eaand w ai ve any c om pl ai ntabou tno tbei ng t ol d t hat yo u w ere n o tal l o w ed t o co m e b ack t o th e co u n try? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es. T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n s e nt e nc e d B r a nde l - M e nat o 78 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt and t hree ye ar s’ supervi se d rel ea se . I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . G u i l ty P l ea O n app ea l , B ra nd el -M ena a rgues thathi s gui l t y pl eai s i nv al i d b ec ause , d u r in g th e p le ac o llo q u y , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t fa ile d to a d v is e h im o f h is r ig h t to pe r s i s ti n pl e a di ng notgui l t y , a s r e qui r e d by R ul e 11. B e c a us e B r a nde l - M e na ra i se s thi s i ss ue for the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l , w e r evi ew for pl ai n err or. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. M ori ar t y, 42 9 F . 3d 10 12 , 10 19 (11 C i r. 20 05 ). “ T o est abl i sh pl ai n err or, th7

ad e fe n d a n t m u s t s h o w th e r e is ( 1 ) e r r o r , ( 2 ) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f fe c ts subst ant i al ri gh t s. ” I d. If a def endantm ee t s a l l three of these cond i t i on s, w e m ay e xe r c i s e ourdi s c r e t i on t o r e c ogni z e the e r r or“ i f the e r r ors e r i ous l y a f

fe c t [ s ] the fa i r ne s s , i nt e gr i t y orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m a r k s o m itte d ) . A courtac ce pt i ng a gui l t y pl eam ustcom pl y w i th R ul e 11 and , i n p ar t i cul ar , a ddr e s s thr e e “ c or e c onc e r ns ” by e ns ur i ng tha t : ( 1) the gui l t y pl e ai s vol unt a r y ; ( 2) the de fe nda ntunde r s t a nds the na tur e of the c ha r ge s ; a nd ( 3) the de fe nda nt u n d e r s ta n d s th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h is p le a . I d . R u le 1 1 s ta te s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, before a cc ept i ng the defendant ’ s gui l t y pl ea , m ustadvi se the defendanti n o pen c o u r t o f , in te ra lia , h is “r ig h t to p le a d n o t g u ilty , o rh a v in g a lr e a d y s o p le a d e d , to p e r s is t in th a t p le a .” S e e F e d . R . C r im . P . 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e x p lic itly in fo r m B r a n d e l- M e n ao f h is r ig h t to p e r s is t in h is n o t- g u ilty p le a . T h e g o v e r n m e n t c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to r e c ite th e R u le 1 1 w a iv e ro f

r ig h ts v e rb a tim a n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e f fe c tiv e ly a d v is e d B r a n d e lM e naof hi s r i ghtt o pe r s i s ti n hi s not - gui l t y pl e adur i ng the c our s e of the p ro ceed i n g s. W e ne e d notr e s ol ve thi s i s s ue be c a us e , e ve n a s s um i ng the r e w a s R ul e 11 e r r o rth a t w a s p la in , B r a n d e l- M e n ah a s n o t s h o w n th a t th e e r r o ra f fe c te d h is8

s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s . Atam i n i m u m , B r a n d e l - Me n awa s r e q u i r e d t o s h o w a

“ ‘ re as on abl e probabi l i t y that , bu tfor the [R ul e 11] error, he w ou l d n othave ent er ed the pl ea . ’ ” S ee M ori ar t y, 42 9 F . 3d at10 20 (quo t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. D om i ng uez B e ni t e z , 542 U . S . 74, 83, 124 S . C t . 2333, 2340 ( 2004) ) . B r a nde l - M e naha s not a l l e ge d, m uc h l e s s s how n, tha t , butforthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s om i s s i on, he w oul d not h a v e p le d g u ilty . Indeed, du ri ng the pl eacol l oq uy, the di stri ctcourttho roug hl y questi on ed B r a nde l - M e naa bouthi s i nt e nt i on t o pl e a d gui l t y i n s pi t e of the r e qui r e m e nttha the gi ve up nu m er ou s c on sti tut i on al ri gh t s. A ft erthe go vernm entre ci t ed the fa ctual b a s is fo rth e g u ilty p le a , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a s k e d B r a n d e l- M e n aw h e th e rh e s till w ant ed t o p l ea d g ui l t y, and B ra nd el -M ena r es po nd ed thathe di d. M oreover, at s e n te n c in g , a f

te rB r a n d e l- M e n aa s s e r te d th a t h e h a d n e v e rb e e n to ld th a t it w o u ld be i l l egal for hi m t o ree nt erthe U ni t ed S t at es , B ra nd el -M ena decl i ned t he di stri ct c our t ’ s i nvi t a t i on t o m ove t o w i thdr a w hi s gui l t y pl e a . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M onr oe , 353 F . 3d 1346, 1350 ( 11 C i r . 2003) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t , w he n c ons i de r i ng th w he the raR ul e 11 e r r ora f fe c t e d ade fe nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s , “ the r e vi e w i ng courtm ay consul tthe w ho l e r ec ord”). B. Pr i o r C o nv i c t i o ns Ci t i n g th e Su p r e me Co u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n A p p r e n d i v . N e w J e r s e y , 5 3 0 U . S.B e c aus e Brand el- Mena time ly raise d his Apprendi/B oo ker obje c tio n inthedis tric t c ourt , 4 wereview his c laim deno vo . Se eUnite d St ate s v . Paz, 4 05 F .3 d 9 46 , 9 48 (1 1 Cir . 2 00 5) . Weno te th that B rande l- Mena

c halleng e s o nly the incre a se in his statutory maximum sentenc eun der 8 U. S.C. § 1 32 6(b) (2 ). Hedo e s n ot challeng ethe16 -l e vel in c re a sein his b a seof fens ele vel (purs uant to U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2(b)( 1)(A) (i)) that was used in calculatinghis advisory Guidelines rang e. 9 4 6 6 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 2 3 4 8 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , B r a n d e l- M e n aa r g u e s th a t h is F if th a n d S ix th A m endm entri gh t s w er e vi ol at ed because the di stri ctcourti ncre as ed hi s s t atut ory m a x im u m s e n te n c e b a s e d o n p r io rfe lo n y d r u g c o n v ic tio n s th a t w e r e n o t c h a r g e d in th e in d ictm en t o r p ro v ed to a ju ry b ey o n d a r ea so n ab le d o u b t. B ra n d el-M en a’s 4 a r gum e nti s for e c l os e d by A l m e nda r e z - T or r e s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 523 U . S . 224, 228, 118 S . C t . 1219, 1223 ( 1998) . A s B r a nde l - M e nac a ndi dl y a c know l e dge s , the S u p r e m e C o u r t c o n s is te n tly c a r v e d o u t a n e x c e p tio n fo rp r io rc o n v ic tio n s in A ppr e ndi a nd i t s pr oge ny B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2 0 0 4 ) a n d U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r e pe a t e dl y ha ve e xpl a i ne d tha t , de s pi t e s pe c ul a t i on a boutthe f utur e vi a bi l i t y of A lm e n d a r e z - T o r r e s , w e a r e b o u n d b y A lm e n d a r e z - T o r r e s u n til it is e x p lic itly ove r r ul e d by the S upr e m e C our t . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r e e r , ___ F . 3d ___, 2006 W L 435662, a t*5- 9 ( 11 C i r . F e b. 24, 2006) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G i bs on, 434 th F . 3d 1234, 1246 ( 11 C i r . 2006) . T he r e for e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note r ri n us i ng th B ra nd el -M ena’ s pri or conv i cti on s t o enh ance hi s s ent ence . A c c or di ngl y , fora l l of

the s e r e a s ons , w e a f

f i r m B r a nde l - M e na ’ s c onvi c t i on10

and sent ence . AF F I RME D.