FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 23, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 60 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 00 30 -SPM -AK-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us KEITH EDWARD OLMEDA, Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 23 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, BLACK an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Keit h Ol m ed a ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r pr oduc ti on of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 1( a). No re ve rs ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af firm . Olm ed a rec ei ve d ato ta l s en te nc e o f 15 0 years’ im pr is on m en t. Thi s t ot al se nt en ce co ns is te d o f co ns ecu ti ve 30 -y ear s ta tu to ry m ax im um sen te nc es on each of th e fi ve co un ts . On ap pe al , Olm ed a co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredpl ai nl y * -- u nd er Fe d.R .Cri m .P. 11 (b )(1 )(H) -- b y fai li ng to in fo rm

hi m at t he pl ea co ll oquy th athi s s en te nc es co ul d b e im po se d t o ru n c on se cu ti ve ly. Bec au se Olm ed a rai se d n o o bjec ti on ab ou t Ru le 11 erro r in th e d is tri ct co urt, we re vi ew hi s p res en t cl ai m on ly for p la in erro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Cam ach o, 23 3 F .3d13 08 , 13 13 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). “ Und er the pl ai n e rro r st an da rd , an e rro r is rev ers ib le on ly if itis cle ar o r ob vi ou s an d a ffec ts subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts .” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d) . An erro r can no t b e p la in if s uc h e rro r is no t cl ear o r ob vi ou s un de r curren t l aw. Uni te d S ta te s v . Hum ph rey, 16 4 F .3d58 5, 5 88 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). W e m ay rev ie w “ th e who le reco rdwhenco ns id eri ng th e eff ectof a ny erroron

Olmeda’ s SentencingGuidelines ra ng e wa s life imprisonment. In the pre sentenc e * investigation report (PSI ), the probation officer ref ere nced U .S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d), which r equire s sentenc es to run conse cutively if the statutory

maxi mum for ea ch count is less than the total guidelines punishment. Olmeda made no objection to the guidelines ca lculation. 2subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts .” Uni te d S tate s v . Mo nr oe , 35 3 F .3d13 46 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 03 )

(ci ta ti on om it te d) . The di stric t co urt m

us t “ co nduc t an in qu iry int o wh ethe r th e d efen da nt m ak es a kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry gu il ty ple a.” Un it edSta te s v . Hern an de z-Fr ai re, 20 8 F .3d94 5, 9 49 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Thi s g en eral ob li ga ti on requi res th e co urt t o ad dr es s the de fen da ntab ou t thr ee co re co nc ern s u nd erl y in g R ul e 1 1, en su rin g t ha t (1 ) th e g ui lty

pl ea i s fr ee fr om

co erci on ; (2 ) th e d efen da ntun de rs ta nd s the ch arg es ag ai ns t h im ; an d (3 ) th e d efen da ntis aware o f th e d ire ctco ns eque nc es of h is gu il ty pl ea. Cam ach o, 2 33 F.3dat 1 31 4. Ru le 11 di rect s s pe ci fic al ly tha t the co urt in fo rm th e d efen da ntof, a ndm ak e su re the de fen da ntun de rs ta nd s, ce rta in m at te rs . See F ed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (b )(1 )(A)-( N). In p ert in en t p art , th e co urt i s o bl ig at edto in fo rm th e d efen da ntof “ an y

m ax im um po ss ib le pe na lt y , in cl ud in g i m pr is on m en t, fin e, an d t erm

of s up erv is edrel eas e,” an d “ any m an da to ry

m in im um pe na lt y .” Fed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (b )(1 )(H)-( K). At the pl ea co ll oquy, the di st ric t co urt ex pl ai ne d t o Ol m ed a th atth e p en al ty he face d “ on each of t he fiv e co un ts of t he in di ctm en t [wa s] a m in im um of a t l eas t 15 y ears to a m ax im

um of 3 0 years i m

pr is on m en t, fo ll owe d b y

fiv e y ears to li fe o f supe rv is edrel eas e an d afin e o f $2 50 ,00 0 a s wel l as a $1 00 sp eci al m on et ary as se ss m en t.” Th e co urt al so ex pl ai ne d t o Ol m ed a th atth e g ui de li ne s ap pl ie d t o h is 3cas e an d t ha t the co urt h adau th or ity to im po se a se nt en ce tha t was m or e se ve re o r le ss sev ere t ha n t ha t ca ll edforby the gu id el in es . W e can no t s ay

th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m itte d acle ar o r ob vi ou s erro r in fai li ng to in fo rm

Olm ed a th athi s s en te nc es m us t ru n c on se cu ti ve ly. The s pe ci fic la ng ua ge of Rul e 1 1 d oe s n otm an da te th atth e d is tri ctco urt ex pl ai n t ha t s en te nc es canbe im po se d c on se cu ti ve ly. Andev enif fa il in g t o p ro vi de anex pl ic itst at em en t ab ou t p ot en ti al co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc es co ns ti tu te d e rro r, su cherro r is no t p la in or ob vi ou s u nd er cu rren t l aw as ne it he r th is Co urt n orth e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt d ire ct ly has ad dr es se d t he is su e. See Hu m ph rey, 16 4 F .3dat 5 88 (co nc lu di ng th atno pl ai n e rro r ex is te d i n the di st ric t co urt’s fa il ur e to in fo rm de fen da ntth athi s s en te nc es m us t ru n c on se cu ti ve ly). Olm ed a al so can no t s ho w ho w any erro r affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s be cau se th e en ti re re co rdde m on st rat es th athe un de rs to odth e p le a an d i ts co ns eque nc es . See Hern an de z-Fr ai re, 2 08 F.3dat 9 50 (we “ wil l uph ol d apl ea co ll oquy tha t t ech ni cal ly vio la te s R ul e 1 1, b utad equa te ly addres se s the th ree c or e co nc ern s” ). Whi le Olm ed a p res en tl y arg ue s tha t h e d idno t u nd ers ta ndth atth e wor d “ each ” co ul d m eanco ns ecu ti ve sen te nc es , he s ta te d a t the pl ea co ll oquy tha t he un de rs to odth e p en al ti es an d t he sen te nc in g p ro cedur e an d a sk edno qu es ti on s. See Un it edSta te s v . Med lo ck , 12 F.3d18 5, 1 87 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata 4st ro ng pre su m pt io n e xi st s tha t s ta te m en ts m ad e dur in g apl ea co ll oquy are tru e). Mer el y st at in g n ow tha t h e m is un de rs to odth e p la in m ean in g o f th e wor d “ each ” is in su ffi ci en t t o s at is fy

th e h eav y

bu rd ento sh ow tha t h is st at em en ts m ad e und er oa th were fa ls e. See Un it edSta te s v . Rog ers , 84 8 F .2d16 6, 1 68 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). Inad di ti on , th e rec or d s ho ws tha t the PSI al ert edOlm ed a to th e p os si bi li ty of co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc es ; an d a t Ol m ed a’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , hi s l awy er ackno wled ge d t he po ss ib il it y of c on se cu ti ve sen te nc es an d a rg ue d fo r 36 0- m on th co nc urren t s en te nc es . Insu m , Olm ed a si m

pl y ha s n otsh own pl ai n e rro r th ataffe ct edhi s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . On th is reco rd , he d oe s n otde m on st rat e a rea so nabl e pr ob ab il it y

th at , bu t fo r any

erro r by the di st ric t co urt i n e xp la in in g t he m ax im um se nt en ce h e co ul d re cei ve , he wo ul d n otha ve en te redth e p le a. Andsu cha de m on st rat io n i s re qu ire d o f a d efen da ntwho see ks rev ers al of h is co nv ic ti on aft er a g ui lt y pl ea o n t he gro un d t ha t the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d p la in erro r un de r Ru le 11 . Uni te d S ta te s v . Dom in gu ez Be ni te z, 12 4 S .Ct. 2 33 3, 2 34 0 (2 00 4) . AFFIRMED.

5