FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc ón, United States Circuit Judg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by designation. [ 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. 06- 13064

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 0 2 6 - CR- 5 - M CR 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 M I C H A E L E D W A R D P A I R , D e f e 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 f orthe N or the r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 28, 2008) B e f o r e E D M O N D S O N , C h ie f J u d g e , K R A V I T C H a n d A L A R C Ó N , C ir c u it * Ju d g es. P E R C U R I A M:“I ce”is a term for a certain ty

pe of me thamphetamine. 1 2 M ic h a e l E d w a r d P a irap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e f o llo w in g a g u ilty pl e a f orm a nuf a c tur i ng orpos s e s s i ng w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e 5 orm or e gr a m s of m e th a m p h e ta m in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( v iii) . Ba c k g r o und O n M a y 12, 2005, a uthor i t i e s s e a r c he d P a i r ’ s hom e a nd s e i z e d 7. 88 gr a m s of m e tha m phe t a m i ne a nd m e tha m phe t a m i ne l a bor a t or y e qui pm e nti nc l udi ng p seu d o ep h ed ri n e, g l ass an d T efl o n j ars co n t ai n i n g m eth am p h et am i n e so l u t i o n s, m uri at i c a ci d, a s ca l e, gl as s tub es , di shes , and b ow l s. P ai r’ s f i ng erpri nt s w er e l i ft ed of f s e ve r a l of

the i t e m s . A por t i on of the 7. 88 gr a m s w a s “ i c e ; ” the a m ountof 1 m e th a m p h e ta m in e th a t w a s n o t “ic e ” to ta le d le s s th a n 5 g r a m s . O n A ugus t2, 2005, a gr a nd j ur y i ndi c t e d P a i ra nd hi s c o- de f e nda nta nd gi rl fr i end R ho nd a M i chel l e C ou ch (“ C ou ch”) for ( 1) conspi ra cy t o m anufacture, di stri bu t e, and p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e m ore than 5 gram s of a ctual m e tha m phe t a m i ne ( “ C ount1” ) , a nd ( 2) m a nuf a c tur i ng a nd pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e nt t o d i stri bu t e m ore than 5 gram s of a ctual m etham ph et am i ne (“ C ou nt2”). D ur i ng a br i e f

r e c e s s be f

or e j ur y s e l e c t i on w a s t o be gi n on N ove m be r14, 2 0 0 5 , P a ira n d th e p r o s e c u to rr e a c h e d a n o r a l a g r e e m e n t w h e r e b y P a irw o u ld c oope r a t e a nd pl e a d gui l ty t o C ount2 i n e xc ha nge f ora di s m i s s a l of

C ount1 a nd3

di s m i s s a l of

the c ha r ge s a ga i ns tC ouc h. T he c our tthe n pl a c e d P a i runde roa th a nd c onduc t e d a R ul e 11 c ol l oquy . T he c our ta s ke d P a i ra bouthi s ba c kgr ound, educat i on , w hether he had any hi st ory of m ent al i l l ness , and w hether he w as un der th e in f lu e n c e o f a n y m e d ic a tio n s o rd ru g s . T h e c o u r t th e n in f o r m e d P a iro f

h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts th a t h e w a s w a iv in g , in c lu d in g h is r ig h t to tr ia l, c o u n s e l, t es t i fy , and app ea l . T he j ud ge al so re ad the i nd i ctm ent , confi rm ed w i th P ai r that tho se w er e the charges he fa ce d, and i nform ed P ai r of the st atut ory m andat ory m in im u m s e n te n c e h e f a c e d . A ttha tpoi nt , the c our ta s ke d P a i ri f he ha d a ny que s t i ons . P a i rs t a t e d tha the di d. H e a s ke d w he the rthe G ove r nm e ntw oul d e nt e ri nt o a s e nt e nc i ng a gr e e m e nt and t o t hatqu es t i on the j ud ge re spon ded t hati tw as up t o t he prosecut or. A ft er P a i r ’ s c ouns e l s t a t e d tha tthe pr os e c ut or ’ s of f i c e w oul d notdo i t , the j udge s t a t e d,

“ [T he prosecut or] i s t el l i ng you h e w on ’ tdo i t

— or hi s off i ce w on ’ tdo i t . ” T he j udge , de f

e ns e c ouns e l , a nd de f

e nda ntthe n ha d a di s c us s i on a bout w he the rthe pr os e c ut or ’ s of f i c e c oul d a gr e e t o a s e nt e nc e r e c om m e nda t i on. D ur i ng thatdi sc ussi on , the j ud ge st at ed that“ W e nee d t o m ake [ the deci si on as t o w hether to p le a o rg o to tr ia l] s o o n b e c a u s e I ’v e g o t p e o p le d o w n s ta ir s th a t e ith e rn e e d to c om e up he r e f

orj ur y s e l e c t i on orne e d t o be s e nthom e . B uti f y ou w a ntt o go f o r w a r d w ith y o u rtr ia l, th a t’s w h a t w e ’ll d o , b u t it w ill b e a s to [ th e ] in d ic tm e n t.4

I ’m a s s u m in g it w ill b e to th e in d ic tm e n t.” P a i rthe n a s ke d the j udge how m uc h di f f e r e nc e pl e a di ng gui l ty w oul d m a ke t o hi s s e nt e nc e . P a i ri ndi c a t e d tha the di d notf e e l he w a s ge tt i ng a be ne f i tby e nt e r i ng a pl e a . A ttha tpoi nt , the j udge a nd P a i r ’ s a tt or ne y e xpl a i ne d tha tthe pr os e c ut orc oul d f

i l e a s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e m ot i on a nd tha tthe G ove r nm e nt coul d rec om m end a do w nw ar d d epar ture. T he j ud ge st at ed thatsuch a m ot i on w as

“ e nt i r e l y up t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt or ne y ’ s O f f i c e . I ha ve no r ol e i n the de c i s i on and n ei ther does [ the prosecut or] . ” T he j ud ge st at ed, ho w ever , thatthe fi nal deci si on w ou l d b e l ef

tt o t he court . T he j ud ge then sai d, “ If you g o t o t ri al and are c onvi c t e d, f

ound gui l ty by a j ur y , I ’ ve ne ve rs e e n i thappe n w he r e s om e one re ce i ves the benefi tof [s uch a m ot i on ] af t erhavi ng go ne t o t ri al . I’ ve never s ee n i t . ” P ai r st at ed th ath e u n d erst o o d th i s. T h e c o u r t th e n s o u g h t to d e te r m in e if a s u f f ic ie n t f a c tu a l b a s is e x is te d to s uppor ta gui l ty pl e a . T he j udge ha d the pr os e c ut orr e a d the f a c t s the G ove r nm e nt i nt e nde d t o pr ove a nd P a i ra gr e e d w i th thos e f a c t s . P a i ra nd the j udge the n ha d a d is c u s s io n a b o u t th e w e ig h t o f th e m e th a m p h e ta m in e a n d w h e th e rP a ir m anufactured i tw i th t he i nt entt o d i stri bu t e i t . P ai r a dm i tt ed thathe had p osse ss ed 7. 88 gr a m s a nd the j udge a s ke d i f P a i rha d i nt e nde d t o m a nuf a c tur e the m e th a m p h e ta m in e w ith th e in te n t to d is tr ib u te . T h e ju d g e s ta te d th a t “d is tr ib u te5

doe s n’ tne c e s s a r i l y m e a n t o s e l l . ” P a i rr e s ponde d, “ R i ght . I thoughtI w a s pl e a di ng to th e s e c o n d o n e .” D e f e n s e c o u n s e l th e n e x p la in e d to P a irth a t h e w a s p le a d in g to th e s e c o n d c o u n t. T h e ju d g e s ta te d , “A n d th a t is th e c h a r g e in C o u n t 2 . I t is n o t a c ons pi r a c y c ount , buti s a c ha r ge of m a nuf a c tur i ng. P a i rr e s ponde d, “ I t ’ s s a y i ng I m anufactured, ” a nd then request ed t i m e t o speak t o h i s c ou nsel . A ft erthey s po ke, P a ira s k e d th e c o u r t, “I u n d e r s to o d th e q u e s tio n to b e d id I m a n u f a c tu r e th a t w ith the i nt entt o d i stri bu t e. I di d m anufacture i t . ” A s f o rth e d is tr ib u tio n e le m e n t, th e ju d g e a s k e d if P a irm a n u f

a c tu r e d it w ith the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e i t . P a i r ’ s c ouns e l r e s ponde d, “ T ha t ’ s the t oughe s tque s t i on th e c o u rt’s [a sk ed ]. T h at’s o u r d ef en se .” T h e ju d g e r ep li ed , “ W ell, h e d o es n ’t ha ve a ny de f

e ns e i f he goe s f

or w a r d w i th the pl e a . ” A f t e rs om e f

ur the rdi s c us s i on, th e ju d g e to ld P air w h at co n stitu ted “d istrib u ti o n ”; sh e s tated , “ Y o u d o n ’t ne c e s s a r i l y ha ve t o go outon the s tr e e ta nd m a ke a s a l e orgo t o a s tr a nge ra nd m a ke a s a l e . Y ou c a n ha ve a pa r ty a nd l e ts om e one s ha r e i n y our m etham ph et am i ne. T hatw ou l d b e di stri bu t i on . . . . If you share d i t , then you ’ re d is tr ib u tin g it.” P a irs ta te d th a t h is in te n tio n w ith th e m e th a m p h e ta m in e w a s to

“ sm ok e i tup ” w i th “ w ho everhapp ened t o b e there . ” T he j ud ge then st at ed that there w as enou gh evi dence t o sup po rta gui l ty pl eat o C ou nt2 and P ai r pl ea ded gu i l ty t o t he charge.Pair had a ppointed counsel on at least two prior oc casions; once , counsel won a motion 2 to s uppre ss. 6 B e f o r e P a ir ’s s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , h o w e v e r , h e f ile d a m o tio n to w ith d r a w h is gui l ty pl e a . A m ong othe rthi ngs , he s t a t e d tha the w a s nota de qua t e l y a dvi s e d of the na tur e of

the c ha r ge a ga i ns thi m ( i n vi ol a t i on of R ul e 11) a nd tha the di d not unde r s t a nd the r e l a t i on be tw e e n the l a w a nd the f a c t s tha the a dm i tt e d i n pl e a di ng g u ilty . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n f o llo w in g a h e a r in g . P a i rthe n s oughtt o r e pr e s e nthi m s e l f pr o s e w i th the a s s i s t a nc e of s t a ndby coun se l . T he courthel d a heari ng on P ai r’ s m ot i on t o p roce ed pro se. T he court as ked P ai r abo uthi s e du ca t i on and t ra i ni ng as a m i l i t ary t ec hn i ci an, w hether he had a h is to r y o f

m e n ta l illn e s s , a n d h is p r io re x p e r ie n c e w ith c o u r t- ap p o in te d c o u n s e l. 2 T he c our tt ol d P a i rtha ti f he pr oc e e de d w i thoutc ouns e l tha the w oul d s t i l l be r e qui r e d t o f

ol l ow the rul e s of

pr oc e dur e a nd e vi de nc e a nd tha t , a s a pr i s one r , he h a d lim ite d a c c e s s to le g a l r e s e a r c h m a te r ia ls . P a irs ta te d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d th is . T h e c o u r t a ls o in f

o r m e d P a irth a t th e c o u r t w a s o f th e o p in io n th a t it w a s n o t “in your besti nt er es tt o p roce ed” pro se . T he courtw arned P ai r thatcr i m i nal s e nt e nc i ng i n the f

e de r a l c our t s i s c om pl i c a t e d a nd tha tbe c a us e he di d notha ve a ny tr a i ni ng ore xpe r i e nc e i n the appl i c a t i on of the G ui de l i ne s the r e w a s “ a huge ri sk . . . i n g o i n g fo rw ard w i th o u tco u n sel . ” S t at i n g th ath e u n d erst o o d th ese ri sk s, P a irr e a f f ir m e d h is d e s ir e to p r o c e e d p r o s e a n d th e ju d g e g r a n te d P a ir ’s m o tio n .It was orig inally filed on March 24, 2006 but was not accepted bec ause of filing 3 defic iencies; Pair wa s able to cor rec t these def

iciencie s and re -filed it on April 10, 2006. 7 B e f or e the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, P a i rf i l e d a M ot i on f

orI nde pe nde ntT e s t i ng of the m e tha m phe t a m i ne . H e f i l e d the m ot i on on A pr i l 10, 2006

— s e ve r a l m onths 3 af t erhi s N ov em ber 200 5 g ui l ty pl eaand w el l af t erthe A ug ust15 , 20 05 di sc ov ery or de ri n w hi c h the c our trul e d tha ta l l pr e tr i a l m ot i ons w e r e t o be f i l e d w i thi n 10 da y s of the or de r . T he c our tde ni e d P a i r ’ s m ot i on a s m oots i nc e he ha d a l r e a dy p le a d e d g u ilty to th e o f

f e n s e . A l tho ug h t he appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange w as 70 t o 8 7 m on ths, P ai r f ac ed a n d r e c e iv e d th e s ta tu to r y m in im u m s e n te n c e o f 1 2 0 m o n th s . O n ap p ea l, P air c laim s th at (1 ) th e c o u rt im p ro p er ly p ar ti cip ated in P air’s pl e a ne got i a t i ons ; ( 2) he di d notunde r s t a nd the na tur e of the c ha r ge s t o w hi c h he pl ea ded g ui l ty a nd , there fore , the courti m prop er l y deni ed hi s m ot i on t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl e a ; ( 3) the j udge e r r e d by de ny i ng the m ot i on t o pe r m i ti nde pe nde nt te s tin g o f

th e m e th a m p h e ta m in e ; a n d , ( 4 ) th e ju d g e e r r e d b y p e r m ittin g P a irto pr oc e e d pr o s e . W e di s c us s e a c h c l a i m i n tur n. D i s c u s s i on A . I mpr ope rpar tic i

pation in t

h e ple a dis c u s s ion P a irc o n te n d s o n ap p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p e r m is s ib ly p a r tic ip a te d in the pl e a ne got i a t i on be c a us e the j udge ( 1) i m pl i e d w i thouta s ki ng the G ove r nm e nt8

tha tthe G ove r nm e ntw oul d nota gr e e t o a s e nt e nc i ng a gr e e m e nt , ( 2) c oe r c e d the gu i l ty pl eaby hu rryi ng P ai r, (3) s t at ed thatshe had never se en a dow nw ar d departure m ot i on m ade f ol l ow i ng a j ury tri al and con vi ct i on , and (4) i m pl i ed that P ai r w ou l d n otprevai l attri al beca use he di d n othave any defe nse i f he procee ded w i th a gu i l ty pl ea . A j udge c a nnotpa r t i c i pa t e i n the pl e a di s c us s i ons be tw e e n the G ove r nm e nt a nd a c r i m i na l de f

e nda nt . F e d. R . C r i m . P . 11. B e c a us e P a i rdi d notobj e c ta tthe d istrict co u rt to im p ro p erju d icial p ar ti cip atio n in th e p lea, w e r ev iew P air’s c ont e nt i on unde rthe pl a i n e r r ors t a nda r d. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V onn, 535 U . S . 55, 59 (200 2). U nd erpl ai n-error r evi ew , the defendanthas the bu rden t o sho w that

“ there i s ( 1) “ error” (2) thati s “ pl ai n” and (3) thati t“ af fe ct [s ] subst ant i al ri gh t s. ” U n i t e d St a t e s v . M o n r o e , 3 5 3 F. 3 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 4 9 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . Th e Su p r e me C our tha s he l d tha ti n or de rt o m e e tthe thi r d pr ong, a “ de f e nda ntw ho s e e ks re vers al of hi s c on vi ct i on fol l ow i ng a gui l ty pl eaon the grou nd thatthe di stri ct c o u r t c o m m itte d p la in e r r o ru n d e rR u le 1 1 m u s t s h o w a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility th a t, bu tfor the error, he w ou l d n othave ent er ed the pl ea . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. D om i nq uez B eni t ez , 54 2 U . S . 74 , 83 (200 4). A dd i t i on al l y, on ce the defendanthas e st abl i shed the f i r s tthr e e pr ongs , the r e vi e w i ng c our tm a y the n e xe r c i s e i t s j ur i s di c t i on a nd c o r r e c t th e e r r o r , b u t o n ly if it “s e r io u s ly a f

f e c ts th e f a ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic9

r e put a t i on of

the j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l a no, 507 U . S . 725, 732 (199 3). P ai r a rgues thatthe j ud ge’ s s t at em ent s w er e c oerc i ve and, there fore , e r r o n e o u s , a n d th a t th is e r r o ris p la in . P a ird o e s n o t, h o w e v e r , s u g g e s t th a t th e r e is a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha tthe j udge ’ s s t a t e m e nt s w e r e a “ butf orc a us e ” of

the g u ilty p le a . I n f

a c t, a r e a d in g o f

th e tr a n s c r ip t s u g g e s ts o th e r w is e . P a i ra nd the pr os e c ut orha d a l r e a dy r e a c he d a n a gr e e m e ntbe f or e the j udge m a de the a l l e ge dl y i m pr ope rc om m e nt s ; f ur the r , thos e c om m e nt s s t e m f r om que s t i ons P a i ra s ke d a bouthi s s e nt e nc e a nd w ha tbe ne f i t s he w oul d r e c e i ve by p le a d in g g u ilty . T h e ju d g e ’s c o m m e n ts w e r e a ll m a d e in r e s p o n s e to q u e s tio n s P a ir as k ed th e c o u rt. T h u s, P air h as n o t m et h is b u rd en to co n v in ce th is co u rt w ith “a re as on abl e probabi l i ty” thatthe di stri ctj ud ge’ s c om m ent s w er e the “ bu tfor c ause ” of hi s gui l ty pl ea . B . W it h draw al of t h e gu il t y plea P ai r nextcont ends thatthe courterre d i n i t s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o w i thd ra w th e g u ilty p le a . W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of a r e que s tt o w i thdr a w a gui l ty pl e a f ora bus e of d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . N a jja r , 2 8 3 F .3 d 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 0 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e w ill r e ve r s e a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on on a m ot i on t o w i thdr a w onl y i f i ti s a rbi tr a r y or10

unr e a s ona bl e . I d. A di stri ctcourtm ay perm i ta def endantt o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl eabefore th e i mp o s i t i o n o f

as e n t e n c e f

o ra “ f a i ra n d j u s tr e a s o n . ” Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 1 1 (d )(2 )(B ). In d et erm i n i n g w h eth er a d efen d an th as sh o w n a “ fai r an d j u st r e a s on, ” the di s tr i c tc our te va l ua t e s the t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s , i nc l udi ng “ ( 1) w hether c l ose a ss i st ance of coun se l w as avai l abl e; (2) w hether the pl eaw as know i ng a nd vol unt a r y ; ( 3) w he the rj udi c i a l r e s our c e s w oul d be c ons e r ve d; a nd ( 4) w h e th e rth e g o v e r n m e n t w o u ld b e p r e ju d ic e d if

th e d e f e n d a n t w e r e a llo w e d to w i thd ra w hi s pl ea . ” N ajj ar , 28 3 F . 3d at13 18 . “ M oreover, w hen a di stri ctcourt a c c e p ts a g u ilty p le a , it m u s t e n s u r e th a t th e th r e e c o r e c o n c e r n s o f R u le 1 1 . . . ha ve be e n m e t : ( 1) the gui l ty pl e a m us tbe f r e e f r om c oe r c i on; ( 2) the de f e nda nt m us tunde r s t a nd the na tur e of the c ha r ge s ; a nd ( 3) the de f e nda ntm us tknow a nd unde r s t a nd the c ons e que nc e s of hi s gui l ty pl e a . ” I d. ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on m a r ks o m itte d ) . P a ira s s e r ts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in its d e te r m in a tio n th a t P a ir u n d e r s t o o d th e n a tu r e o f th e c h a r g e s a g a i n s th i m. M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y , Pa i rc l a i ms tha the di d notunde r s t a nd the na tur e of the “ di s tr i but i on” or“ m a nuf a c tur i ng” e l e m e nt s of

the c r i m e . P a i r , how e ve r , doe s note f f e c t i ve l y s how e xa c t l y how he m i s unde r s t ood the “ di s tr i but i on” e l e m e nt . A s f orthe “ m a nuf

a c tur i ng” e l e m e nt , heThe c harg e in Day ton was possession with intent to distribute marijuana . 4 The Eleventh Circuit, in the en banc de cision Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 5 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), adopted a s prec edent de cisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 11 cl ai m s thathe m ea ntt o p l ea d g ui l ty t o “ m anufacturi ng ” buthe di d n otm anufacture thatpo rt i on of the m etham ph et am i ne thatw as “ i ce . ” R ul e 11 requi re s thata def endantm ustun ders t and t he nature of the charges a ga i ns thi m . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J one s , 143 F . 3d 1417, 1418- 19 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . B ut the l a w doe s notr e qui r e tha tthe de f e nda ntpl e a di ng gui l ty m us tunde r s t a nd a l l the n u a n c e s o f

th e la w : F ors i m pl e c ha r ge s s uc h a s thos e i n thi s c a s e , a r e a di ng of the 4 i n d i ctm en t , fo l l o w ed b y an o p p o rtu n i ty g i v en th e d efen d an tt o ask qu es t i on s abo uti t , w i l l usual l y s uffi ce . C harges of a m ore c om pl ex nature, i ncorpo ra t i ng es ot er i c t erm s or c on ce pt s unfam i l i art o t he l ay mi n d , ma y r e q u i r e mo r e e x p l i c a t i o n . I n th e c a s e o f c h a r g e s o f

e x tr e me com pl exi ty, an expl anat i on of the el em ent s of the offens e l i ke that gi ve n the j ur y i n i t s i ns truc t i ons m a y be r e qui r e d; thi s , of c our s e , i s the out e rl i m i t , f

ori f a n i ns truc t i on i nf

or m s a j ur y of

the na tur e of

the c h a r g e s u f

f ic ie n tly f o rit to c o n v ic t th e d e f

e n d a n t o f it, s u r e ly it i nform s the defendantsuff i ci ent l y f or hi m t o con vi cthi m se l f. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. D ay t on , 60 4 F . 2d 93 1, 93 7-38 (5th C i r. 19 79 ) ( en banc). 5

“ ‘ [T ] here i s no o ne m ec hani ca l w ay or prec i se j un cture t o w hi ch a di stri ct j udge m us tc onf

or m i n a dvi s i ng a de f

e nda ntof the c ha r ge s t o w hi c h he i s pl e a di ng gui l ty . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M os l e y , 173 F . 3d 1318, 1322 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . I ns t e a d, w e a s s e s s e a c h pl e a c ol l oquy i ndi vi dua l l y i n the c ont e xtof the e nt i r e r e c or d,12

e xa m i ni ng s uc h f

a c t or s a s the “ s i m pl i c i ty orc om pl e xi ty of the c ha r ge s a nd the defe nd ant ' s s op hi st i ca t i on and i nt el l i gence. ” I d. at13 23 . “ T hese m att er s a re bet t er c om m i tt e d t o the good j udgm e ntof the di s tr i c tj udge , w ho obs e r ve s the d e f e n d a n t’s d e m e a n o r , lif

e e x p e r ie n c e , a n d in te llig e n c e .” I d . A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the tr a ns c r i pt s of P a i r ’ s R ul e 11 pl e ac ol l oquy a nd the h ea rin g o n h is m o ti o n to w ith d ra w th e p lea, w e c an n o t say th at th e d istrict co u rt’s d e n ia l w a s e ith e ra rb itr a r y o ru n r e a s o n a b le . T h e c o u r t c o m p lie d w ith R u le 1 1 . P a i r ’ s of f e ns e w a s a “ s i m pl e c ha r ge ” ; thus , t o s a t i s f y R ul e 11 unde rourbi ndi ng p r e c e d e n t, th e c o u r t h a d to r e a d th e in d ic tm e n t a n d p r o v id e a n o p p o r tu n ity f o rP a ir t o ask qu es t i on s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. S anchez, 65 0 F . 2d 74 5, 74 7-74 8 (5t h C i r. 1 9 8 1 ) (a read i n g o f th e i n d i ctm en tan d th e o p p o rtu n i ty fo r th e d efen d an tt o ask q u e s tio n s w a s s u f

f ic ie n t to c o m p ly w ith R u le 1 1 w h e r e tw e n ty - f iv e y e a ro ld m i grantw orker w i th seventh g ra de educat i on and n o cri m i nal re cord w as char ged w i th pos s e s s i on w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m a r i j ua na ) . H e r e , the j udge r e a d the in d ic tm e n t a n d a s k e d P a irif h e u n d e r s to o d th e c h a r g e s h e f a c e d . P a irs a id h e d id . T h e c o u r t a ls o a s k e d P a irif h e h a d a n y q u e s tio n s . M or e ove r , P a i r ’ s c ouns e l a nd the c our te xpl a i ne d t o P a i rtha tthe

“ di s tr i but i on” e l e m e ntc oul d be s a t i s f i e d by s how i ng tha tP a i ri nt e nde d t o s ha r e the drugs w i th othe r s . P a i ra l s o ha d a m pl e oppor tuni ty t o c ons ul tw i th hi s a tt or ne y a nd13

P a i rs t a t e d tha the ha d di s c us s e d the pl e a w i th hi s c ouns e l . P a i rha d “ a c oupl e of y e a r s ” of c ol l e ge a nd ha d r e c e i ve d tr a i ni ng a s a n e l e c tr oni c s t e c hni c i a n i n the N a vy . G i ve n P a i r ’ s e xpe r i e nc e a s a de f e nda nti n pr i orc r i m i na l c a s e s , hi s a ge , a nd h is e d u c a tio n a l e x p e r ie n c e a n d tr a in in g , w e c a n n o t s a y th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d . C. I nde p e nde nt te s tingo f t he m e t ha mp he ta m ine P a irf u r th e rc o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n to i nd ependent l y t es tthe m etham ph et am i ne. P ai r a rgues thathe w ant s t o p er form t e s t i ng t o de t e r m i ne the a m ountof i m pur i t i e s , the w e i ght , a nd w he the rthe m etham ph et am i ne i s “ L ” m etham ph et am i ne or “ D ” m etham ph et am i ne. H e does no tar gu e thatthe G ov ernm ent ’ s w ei gh tca l cul at i on i s i ncorrec t ; he j ustas se rt s that he has adu e proces s r i gh tt o t es tthe subst ance and t hatthe di stri ctcourtdeni ed h im th e o p p o r tu n ity to e x e r c is e th is r ig h t. P a ir ’s M o tio n f

o rI n d e p e n d e n t T e s tin g w a s u n tim e ly , a s it w a s f ile d w e ll af t erthe di stri ctcourt ’ s A ug ust20 05 di sc ov ery dea dl i ne and aft erhe pl ea ded gui l ty . W e , the r e f

or e , r e vi e w the de ni a l of P a i r ’ s m ot i on unde rthe pl a i n e r r or s t a nda r d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l a no, 507 U . S . 725, 731- 733 ( 1993) ( f or f e i t e d c l a i m of co n st i tu t i o n al v i o l at i o n w i l l b e rev i ew ed u n d er th e p l ai n erro r st an d ard ); see al so F ed. R . C ri m . P . 12 (c ) ( the di stri ctcourtca n seta dea dl i ne for a l l pre- tri al m ot i on s) .14

A de f e nda nti n a pr os e c ut i on f o ra d ru g o f

f e n s e h a s a d u e p r o c e s s r ig h t to have an expertperf

orm an i nd ependentanal ys i s of the se i ze d sub st ance . S ee U n ite d S ta te s v . N a b o r s , 7 0 7 F .2 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . B uta def endantdo es no thave the sa m e degree of du e proces s prot ec t i on s a t s e nt e nc i ng. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a tt e r f i e l d, 743 F . 2d 827, 840 ( 11th C i r . 1984) ( “ T he s o le in te r e s t b e in g p r o te c te d is th e r ig h t n o t to b e s e n te n c e d o n th e b a s is o f in v a lid p r e m is e s o rin a c c u r a te in f o r m a tio n . B e c au s e th e s e n te n c in g p r o c e d u r e is n o t a tr i a l , c our t s ha ve l i m i t e d thi s r i ghti n or de rt o pr e ve ntthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng f r om b e c o m in g a f

u ll- s c a le e v id e n tia r y h e a r in g ” ) . P a i rha s notm e thi s bur de n. O urdue pr oc e s s c onc e r n tha ta de f e nda nt“ not be s e nt e nc e d on the ba s i s of i nva l i d pr e m i s e s ori na c c ur a t e i nf or m a t i on” doe s not com e i nt o p l ay i n t hi s c as e bec ause P ai r m akes no ar gu m entthathe w as se nt ence d on ei ther i nv al i d p re m i se s or i nacc urat e i nform at i on . S ee Id. H e does notar gu e, f ore xa m pl e , tha tthe G ove r nm e nt ’ s l a bor a t or y e qui pm e ntm a l f unc t i one d ortha tthe w e i ghti s i na c c ur a t e . N ori s the di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n “ L ” m e tha m phe t a m i ne a nd

“ D” m e th a m p h e t a m i n e l e g a l l y s i g n i f i c a n ti n a n y wa y . P a i rh a s c e r t a i n l y n o ts h o wn pl ai n err or. D . P air ’s s e l

f - r e pr e s e n tation P a i ra r g u e s th a tth e c o u r te r r e d b y a l l o wi n g h i m t o r e p r e s e n th i m s e l f . He15

s ta te s th a t th e c o u r t s h o u ld a llo w a d e f e n d a n t to r e p r e s e n t h im s e lf o n ly a f te ra f u ll i nqui r y i nt o w he the ra w a i ve rof the r i ghtt o c ouns e l i s know i ng, vol unt a r y , a nd in te llig e n t. P a irc la im s th a t th e c o u r t d id n o t in q u ir e s u f f ic ie n tly . T he w a i ve rof

the r i ghtt o c ouns e l m us tbe know i ng, vol unt a r y , a nd i n t el l i g en t . U n i t ed S t at es v . C ash , 4 7 F . 3 d 1 0 8 3 , 1 0 8 8 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ). T h i s i s a m i xed q uest i on of l aw and factthatw e r evi ew de no vo . Id. T he G ov ernm entbear s the bur de n of

pr ovi ng the va l i di ty of

the w a i ve r . I d. If the re cord es t abl i shes thatthe defendantkn ew w hathe w as do i ng and t hat hi s dec i si on w as “ m ade w i th o pen eye s, ” thi s c ou rtw i l l no tov er turn a di stri ct court ’ s dec i si on t o al l ow a def endantt o p roce ed pro se. S ee F ar ett a v. C al i forni a, 422 U . S . 806, 835 ( 1975) . W e l ook a tthe r e c or d t o a s c e r t a i n w he the rthe de f e nda ntw a s m a de a w a r e of the da nge r s of

pr oc e e di ng pr o s e a nd w he the rhe unde r s t ood the de c i s i on he m a de . F i t z pa tr i c k v. W a i nw r i ght , 800 F . 2d 1057, 1065 ( 11th C i r . 1986) . T o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe w a i ve ri s “ know i ng, vol unt a r y , a nd i nt el l i gent , ” w e c on si der s ever al fa ct ors; they a re : (1) the defendant ’ s a ge, e duc a t i ona l ba c kgr ound, a nd phy s i c a l a nd m e nt a l he a l th; ( 2) the e xt e ntof the de f e nda nt ’ s c onduc tw i th l a w y e r s pr i ort o tr i a l ; ( 3) the de f e nda nt ’ s know l e dge of th e n atu re o f th e c h ar g es , p o ss ib le d ef en se s, an d p en alti es ; (4 ) th e d ef en d an t’ s unde r s t a ndi ng of

the rul e s of

pr oc e dur e , e vi de nc e , a nd c our tr oom de c orum ; ( 5) the16

defe nd ant ’ s e xp er i ence i n cri m i nal tri al s; (6) w hether s t andb y c ou nsel w as appoi nt e d a nd the e xt e ntt o w hi c h tha tc ouns e l a i de d the de f e nda nt ; ( 7) a ny m i stre atm entor coer ci on of the defendant ; and (8) w hether the defendantw as tr y i ng t o m a ni pul a t e the e ve nt s of tr i a l . C a s h, 47 F . 3d a t1088- 89. A l l f a c t or s do notne e d t o poi nti n the s a m e di r e c t i on, a nd the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d hol d a he a r i ng to e x a m in e th e s e f

a c to r s . I d . H er e, P ai r had a hear i ng i n w hi ch these fa ct ors w er e c on si dere d. T he court c a u tio n e d P a irth a t p r o c e e d in g p r o s e w a s n o t in h is b e s t in te r e s t a n d th a t it i nv ol ved a “ hu ge ri sk. ” T he courtw arned h i m thatse nt enci ng i s c om pl ex and t hat i ti nv ol ves f

ac tual and l egal i ss ues thatca l l for the as si st ance of an experi ence d att orney. P ai r a ckno w l edged t hi s a tthe heari ng and st at ed thathe re cogn i ze d t hat he w as no tsuch a per son. T he courti nq ui re d i nt o P ai r’ s e du ca t i on , w hether he had a ny m e nt a l i l l ne s s e s , the e xt e ntof hi s c ont a c tw i th l a w y e r s , P a i r ’ s unde r s t a ndi ng of the c ha r ge s a nd the pos s i bl e pe na l ty r a nge , hi s e xpe r i e nc e a tc r i m i na l tr i a l s , a nd w hether s t andb y c ou nsel w ou l d b e a vai l abl e. T he j ud ge foun d, and t he re cord i nd i ca t es , thatP ai r w as no tcoer ce d and thathe kn ew w hathe w as do i ng . W e a re sa t i sf i ed thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr. A cc ordi ng l y, w e AF F I RM .