The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern * District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 08 -36 55 -cr; 08-3 65 7-cr UnitedStates v . P olan co 

### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS

FO RTH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT 

# S UMM ARY ORDE R RUL I NGS BY S UM M ARY O R D ER D O N O T HAVE P RE CE DE NT I AL E FF E CT . CI T AT I ON TO A S UM M ARY OR D E R F I L E D A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E R M I T T E D A N D I S G O V E R N E D B Y F E D E R A L R U L E OF A PPELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32. 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D OCUM E NT FI L E D W I T H T HI S COURT , A P ART Y M US T CI T E E I T HER T HE F E DE RAL AP PE NDI X OR AN E L E CT RONI C DAT ABAS E ( W I T H THE NOTA TI ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D ER M U ST SERV E A C O PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL.

A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, hel d atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on the 24 dayof February , tw o thous and t en. th PRES ENT: AM ALY A L. KEA RSE,

PETE R W . HA LL,

C i r cui tJudges , J ED S. RA K O FF,

D is tr i ct Judge . *

__________________________________________ U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca,

Appel l ee , v . D o ck et N o s. 0 8 -36 5 5 -cr(L ); 08- 3657- cr ( C on) G i gli fi P olanco, Jose M i gu el M i nay a, L enn yS antos, G i ov ana T averas,

D e fen da n ts , C es arPol anco, D ef endant-Appel lant .

__________________________________________2

FOR A PP ELLAN T: M IC H A E L K. B AC HRAC H (C h a d E d g a r, on the br i ef ) ; N ew Y or k, N. Y. FOR A PP ELLEE: W I L L I AM J. H ARR ING TON , of couns el t o Pr eetB har ar a, U ni t ed St at es

A t t orneyforthe Southern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k ( A nj an Sahni , D ani el A . B ra u n , on the br i ef

), N e w Y o rk , N .Y . A ppeal fr om a j udgm entof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe Southern D i s tr i ct o f N ew Y o rk (P au ley , J. ). UP ON DUE CONS I DE RAT I ON i t i s h e r e b y ORDE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DE CRE ED thatthe j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourtbe AF F I RM ED . D efe ndant - A ppel l antC es arPol anco appeal s fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s J ul y14, 2008 c o n so lid a ted Ju d g m e n t o f C o n v ictio n e n ter e d f

o llo w in g h is p lea s o f

g u iltyin tw o se p a ra te pr os ecut i ons forw i r e fr aud— one i nvol vi ng s t ol en ca r s , the otheri nvol vi ng the fr audul ent us e of de bi tcar ds

— s ent enci ng hi m t o a 120- m onth pr i s on t erm and t o a 60- m onth pr i s on t erm t o be s erved conc urr ent l y . W e as s um e the part i es ’ fami l i ar i tyw i th the fa ct s , pr ocedur al h isto ry , an d sp e c if

ica tio n o f

iss u e s o n a p p e a l. 1. W i t hdraw al of

G ui l t y P l ea T he def endant - appel l ant ’ s fi r s tar gum enti s thatthe di s tr i ctcourt( Paul ey , J . ) err ed by notal l ow i ng hi m t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea t o the w i r e fr aud/ s t ol en ca rcons pi r acy . T he pl ea pr ocee di ng i n t hi s cas e w as conduct ed s ol el ybyJ udge Paul ey . W e r evi ew the di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f

a m o tio n to w ith d ra w a g u ilty p le a u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . U n itedS ta tes v . C a rr e to , 5 8 3 F .3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 7 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). A d e f e n d a n t m u st “ sh o w a f

a ir3

a n d ju s t r e a s o n f

o r r e q u e s tin g th e w ith d ra w a l” o f h is g u ilty p le a , i d. a t1 5 7 ( q u o t i n g F e d . R. C r i m . P. 11( d) ( 2) ( B ) ) , as w i thdr aw i ng a gui l typl ea i s notan “a bs ol ut e r i ght , ” U ni t ed Stat es v . Wi l l i a ms , 23 F. 3d 629, 634 ( 2d C i r . 1994) . T he appe l l antbas es thi s partof hi s appea l on a c laim o f

a n in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l d u e to h is c o u n se l’s a lleg e d p re ss u rin g o f h im to p le a d g u ilty, th u s n u llif y in g th e re q u ir e m e n t th a t a p le a b e k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry. See F ed . R . C ri m . P . 1 1 (b)(2 ). A partyar gui ng i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el fac es a hea vybur den under Str i ckland v. W

as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668, 687 ( 1984) . T he appe l l antm us ts how “that couns el ' s per form ance w as s o unr eas onabl e . . . that‘ couns el w as notfunct i oni ng as t he

“ c o u n s e l ” g u a r a n t e e d th e d e f e n d a n tb y th e S i x th A m e n d m e n t , ’ a n d [ ] th a tc o u n s e l 's i neff ect i venes s pr ej udi ced the def endants uch that‘ ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , but fo r co u n sel' s u n p rof

essio n al errors, th e re su lto f th e p roc ee d ing w o u ld h av e b ee n d iffe ren t. ’” U n itedS ta tes v . G a sk in , 364 F. 3d 438, 468 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng Str i ckland , 466 U . S. at 6 8 7 , 6 9 4 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion o m itted). In it s ruling fro m the b en ch , the d istri ct co u rt d e ter m in e d th a t P o lan c o f a iled to o f

f e r a n yo b jec tiv e e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld u n d e rm in e h is c lea rlya rticu late d v o lu n tar yp lea b e f o re th e sa m e c o u rt. T he di s tr i ctcourtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng Pol anco’ s m ot i on. A l though appel l antar gues fora l i m i t ed r emand t o devel op the r ecor d on thi s i s s ue, he fa i l s t o offe r a n ytyp e o f

o b jec tiv e e v id e n c e th a t a r e m a n d m ig h t u n c o v e r o f h is d e ter io ra ted re latio n sh ip w i th hi s att orney . A thi s pl ea he ar i ng the appe l l antw as underoath and att es t ed thathi s pl ea w as know i ng and vol unt ary , thathe had s poken w i th hi s att orneyabouthi s cas e and the4

cons equenc es of ent er i ng a pl ea, thathe w as s at i s fi ed w i th hi s att orney ’ s per form ance , and that n o o n e h ad threa tene d h im o r fo rce d h im to en ter his plea o f g u il ty . T h e d istri ct co u rt det erm i ned nothi ng w as ami s s abouthi s demeanoratthe t i m e. Pol anco ha s offe r ed nothi ng otherthan hi s ow n contr adi ct orys t at ement s t o s uppor thi s ar gum ent , and thos e ar e not e n o u g h . U

ni t ed Stat es v. D oe , 5 3 7 F .3 d 2 0 4 , 2 1 1 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (“ A d e f e n d a n t’s b a ld s t at ement s thats i m pl ycontr adi ctw hathe s ai d athi s pl ea a l l ocut i on ar e nots uffi ci ent g rou n d s to w ith d raw the g u il typ lea.” (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted)). W e the ref o re aff i r m the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of Pol anco’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea. 2 . R u le 1 1 C la im Pol anco ne xtar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourt( O w en, J . ) dur i ng the A pr i l 2007 pl ea h e a rin g v io late d R u le 1 1 in n o t ad e q u a telye x p lain in g th e n a tu re o f th e c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it w i r e fr aud cha r ged i n t he debi tcar d cons pi r acy . J udge O w en conduc t ed the i ni t i al pl ea pr ocee di ng i n connec t i on w i th t hi s cas e, butthe ca s e w as tr ans ferr ed t o J udge Paul eypr i or t o s ent enci ng. W e r evi ew the appe l l ant ’ s R ul e 11 cl ai m forpl ai n err orbeca us e the ar gum ent w a s n o t m a d e b e lo w . A p la in e rr o r i s o n e th a t is b o th p la in a n d a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . U n itedS ta tes v . G a rc ia , 587 F. 3d 509, 515 ( 2d C i r . 2009) . “I n the cont extof a Rul e 11 vi ol at i on, t o s how pl ai n err or , a def endantm us tes t abl i s h thatthe vi ol at i on aff ect ed su b sta n tial rig h ts a n d th a t th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t, bu t f o r th e e rro r, h e w o u ld nothave e nt er ed the pl ea. ” I d. ( i n t e rn a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) . Ru l e 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( G) r equi r es the di s tr i ctcourt , i n acc ept i ng a gui l typl ea, t o ens ur e thatthe def endantunder s t and

“ the na tur e of

e a c h c ha r ge t o whi c h the de fe nd a nti s pl e a di ng . ” Fe d. R. Cr i m. P.In 2002, Rule 11 was re org anized and what was Rule 11(c ) for the Black

we ll decision ** is now encompa ssed in the cur rent Rule 11(b) . SeeFe d. R. Crim. P . 11 Advisory Commi ttee Note (2002) ; Report of the Advisory Commi ttee on Criminal Rules, at 40-41(Ma y 10, 2001). 5 11( b) ( 1) ( G ) . T o demonstr at e pl ai n err orPol anco a r gues thatthe tr ans cr i ptof the pl ea hear i ng s how s a l ack of an expl anat i on of the el ement s of w i r e fr aud byei therthe j udge or th e g o v e rn m e n t. I n U n itedS ta tes v . B la c kw e ll , 1 9 9 F . 3 d 6 2 3 , 6 2 6 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ), w e stated that a c o u rt need notfol l ow a part i cul arform ul a i n ens ur i ng the def endantunder s t ands the cha r ges agai ns thi m . T he courtcan de s cr i be “the el ement s of the off ens e i n [i t s ] ow n w or ds ” orr ead th e in d ic tm e n t a lo u d w ith th e e le m e n ts in c lu d e d . I d. O r, “if

d e f e n d a n t' s re c itatio n o f

h is o w n c o n d u c t in su f

f icie n tlysu p p o rts th e re lev a n t ch a rg e , the n R u le 1 1 (c )(1 ) n o n e th e les s is s at i s fi ed w her e the cha r gi ng i ns trum entpl ai nl ydes cr i bes the off ens e and de fenda nt acknow l edges thathe r ead, under s t ood, and di s cus s ed w i th hi s att orneythatl egal document . ” I

d. (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). ** I n the tr ans cr i ptof appe l l ant ’ s A pr i l 2007 pl ea he ar i ng, ther e i s s uffi ci entevi dence thatthe courtadequa t el yexpl ai ned the natur e of the cha r ge i n s at i s fac t i on of i t s obl i gat i ons u n d er R u le 11 . A fter the ap p ell an t w aive d the re ad ing o f th e ind ictm en t, the d istri ct co u rt i dent i fi ed the cha r ge of one countof cons pi r acyt o comm i tw i r e fr aud, and then further ques t i oned Pol anco t o as cert ai n t hathi s pl ea w as vol unt ary . I n an exc hange be tw een Pol anco a nd the di s tr i ctcourt , al l of the el ement s of the i ndi ctm ent , i ncl udi ng the cons pi r acy , w er e des cr i bed i n pl ai n l anguage byboth the courtand the appe l l ant . T o t he6

e x ten t th e re m a yh a v e b e e n e rro r, itis d o u b tf u l th a t itw a s p lain ; b u t itw a s, in a n ye v e n t, h a rm le s s , s ee F e d . R . C rim . P . 1 1 (h ) (“ A v a ria n c e f ro m th e re q u ire m e n t o f

th is ru le is h arm less erro r i f itd o es n o t aff ec t sub stan ti al ri g h ts. ”); F ed . R . C ri m . P . 5 2 (a) (“A n yerro r, d ef ec t, irreg u lari ty , o r va ri an ce that d o es n o t aff ec t sub stan ti al ri g h ts m u st be d isr eg ard ed . ”). W e have cons i der ed al l of Pol anco’ s cont ent i ons on thi s appea l and have found them t o b e w i tho ut m eri t . T he judgm ent of the d i stri ctcou rti s AF F I RM ED . FOR TH E CO UR T: C athe ri n e O ’H ag an W o lfe, C lerk