FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 9, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 00 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 00 17 -KD-M-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JUAN MARK J ONES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t forth e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 9, 2 01 2) Befo re EDMONDSON, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ju an MarkJo ne s ap pe al s fo ll owi ng hi s co nv ic ti on s an d 4 80 -m on th to ta l

se nt en ce fo r co ns pi racy to m an uf actur e m et ha m

ph et am in e an d p os se ss in g a fir earm du rin g adru g t raff

ic ki ng cri m e, 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A) an d (c )(1 )(C) , 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 . On ap pe al , Jo ne s ra is es th ree c ha ll en ge s t o h is co nv ic ti on s: (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt erredinde nyin g h is m ot io ns , fil edin res po ns e to th e go ve rn m en t’s re fu sa l t o m ov e fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on ba se d o n h is co op erat io n, to wit hd raw h is pl ea, o r, al te rn at iv el y , ord er “ sp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce atsen te nc in g” by ord eri ng th e g ov ern m en t t o fi le a subs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io n; (2) th e fac tu al ba si s s up po rti ng on e o f hi s fi rearm -in -fu rth eran ce co nv ic ti on s was in su ffi ci en t;
an d (3 ) tr ia l co un se l was in effe ct iv e. He als o c ha ll en ge s h is sen te nc e as
un reas on ab le . For t he reas on s s etfor th be lo w, we affi rm Jo ne s’s co nv ic ti on s an d to ta l s en te nc e. I. A fed eral gra ndjury ch arg edJo ne s wi th va rio us co un ts , in cl ud in g, in te r al ia , con sp ira cy

to po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e 5 00 gra m s o r m or e o f
m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 a nd84 1( b) (1 )(A) (C ou nt1);
an d t wo co un ts of p os se ss in g afir earm du rin g a ndin rel at io n t o adru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e, on Ju ly 31, 2 00 8, an d Dec em be r 29 , 20 08 , res pe ct iv el y , in vi ol at io n o f

218 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (Co un ts 4 an d 9 ). Thro ug h app oi nt edco un se l Ci nd y Po well , Jo ne s i ni ti al ly ple d n otgu il ty to al l ch arg es . Pu rs ua ntto a writ te n a gr eem en t wi th th e g ov ern m en t, J on es lat er i nd ic at ed th athe wou ldpl eadgu il ty to t he th ree a fo rem en ti on edoff en se s. J on es als o a gr eed to co op erat e wit h t he go ve rn m en t. In ex ch an ge , th e g ov ern m en t ag reedth at , if Jo ne s p ro vi de d:

fu ll , co m pl et e , t ru th fu l an d subs ta nt ia l co op erat io n to th e Uni te d St at es , whi ch res ul ts in subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce to th e Uni te d St at es in th e in ve st ig at io n or pr os ecu ti on of an ot he r cri m in al of

fen se , a de cisi on sp e c i

f i c al ly re se rv ed by th e Uni te d St at es in th e exer cise of it s so le disc re ti on , th en th e Uni te d St at es ag rees to m ov e fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re in acco rd an ce wit h Sect io n 5K 1
. l o f th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s or Ru le 35 of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro cedur e, whi ch ev er th e Uni te d St at es de em s ap pl ic ab le
. The go ve rn m en t ag reed th at if it de te rm in ed th at Jo ne s’s co op erat io n di d no t qu al ify
as subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce, it wou ld “rec omm en d
. . . th at th e de fen da nt rece iv e a
se nt en ce atth e lo w endof t he ap pl ic ab le ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge .” 1 Att ach ed to th e pl ea ag reem en t was a “ factua l res um e,” in whi ch Jo ne s st ip ul at ed th at th e go ve rn m en t co ul d pr ov e cert ai n fact s be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Sp eci fic al ly, th e po li ce be ga n in ve st ig at in g Jo ne s aft er se ve ral in ci de nt s in whi ch he

The g overnme nt also agree d to dismi ss the other seve n counts of the indictment. 1 3c a m e to th ei r at te nt io n in co nn ect io n wit h m et ha m ph et am in e m an uf

actur in g, an d le arn ed fro m co op erat in g wit ne ss es th at he : (a) pa id ot he rs to ob ta in ps eu do ep he dr in e fo r hi m , whi ch he co ok ed in to m et ha m ph et am in e; (b ) so ld m et ha m ph et am in e di rect ly to cu st om ers ; (c) “ li ke d to carr y a g u n ” ; an d (d ) ha d a tra il er on Bl ackwell Nur se ry Ro ad
. The factua l res u me f u r t h er st ip ul at ed th at , on Decem be r 29 , 20 08 , po li ce
res po nd ed to a tra il er at 44 70 Bl ackwell Nur se ry Ro ad aft er rece iv in g an on ym ou s ti ps
co nc ern in g m et ha m

ph et am in e-re la te d act iv it y at th at ad dr es s, an d ob s e r v e d Jo ne s in si de
. Po li ce of

fic ers as ke d Jo ne s to co m e ou ts id e, an d, du rin g an en su in g pa t-d own
se a rch , reco ve red a ha lf- gr am of m et ha m ph et am in e fro m hi s pa nt s po ck et
. In a ga rb ag e p ai l n ear t he st ep s, p ol ic e ob se rv ed em pt y pa ck s o f ps eu do ep he dr in e an d a fu nn el with whi te po wde r res idue . Po li ce al so ob se rv ed pr o p a n e t a n ks an d la rg e
co nt ai ne rs inanop en ut il it y tra il er on th e pr em is es . Bas ed on th is in fo rm at io n, t he po li ce ex ecu te d a se arch warra nt an d reco ve red pr op an e ta nk s, cau st ic so da , jars, an d
a fo od pr oc es so r wit h whi te po wde r res idue on th em , amm on ia , Drai no , co ffee fil te rs , pl as ti c tubi ng , m eas ur in g c up s, an d e m pt y ps eu do ep he dr in e b ox es on th e pr em is es . In si de th e tra il er, po li ce reco ve red ps eu do ep he dr in e, di gi ta l sc al es , ba gg ie s, an d gl as s pi pe s wit h m et ha m

ph et am in e res idue . Po li ce al so r e c o v e r ed a nu m be r of fir earm s, in cl ud in g t wo s ho tg un s, fo urrif le s, t hr ee h an dg un s, an d acro ss bo w.

4Als o, du rin g a po st -arr es t in te rv ie w, Jo ne s ad m it te d th at he res id ed al on e at th e

tra il er on th e 44 70 Bl ackwell Nur se ry Ro ad , an d th at ev erythi ng in si de was hi s. He ad m it te d to po li ce th at on e of th e pi st ol s an d on e of th e sh ot gu ns be lo ng ed to hi m . He al le ge d th at an acqua in ta nc e se t hi m up by le av in g th e ut il ity tra il er on hi s pr op ert y . At hi s pl ea he ari ng in Mar ch 2 0 0 9 , J o n e s v e r i f i e d t h a t t r i al co un se l h ad
ex pl ai ne d hi s ch arg es to hi m . He was sa ti sf ie d wit h co un se l’s rep res en ta ti on th us far. Jo ne s co nf

irmed th at he read th e writ te n pl ea ag reem en t be fo re si gn i n g i t , an d
rev ie weditwit h c ou ns el . He als o c on firm ed th at he ha d no t recei ve d a ny pro m is es ap artfro m

th os e co nt ai ne d the rei n. The di st ric t co urt in fo rm ed Jo ne s th at Co un t 1 carr ie d a st atut ory im pr is on m en t
ran ge of 10 y ears to li fe; Co un t 4 carr ie d a 5- y ear te rm of im pr is on m en t, co ns ecu ti ve to th e ot he r co un ts ; an d Co un t 9 carr ie d a 25 -y ear te rm of im pr is on m en t, co ns ecu ti ve to th e ot he r co un ts
. The co urt ex pl ai ne d th at , “ if th ere is no t subs ta nt ia l co op erat io n,” it ha d “ no au th or it y ex cep t to gi ve [h im ] fo rty y ears .” Jo ne s in di cat ed t h at he
un de rs to od
. The di st ric t co urt in vi te d th e go ve rn m en t to reci te th e el em en ts of each co un t. The go ve rn m en t t he n pr of fere d, in rel ev an t pa rt, th at Jo ne s was pr es en t whe n th e po li ce ex ecu te d a se arch warra nt on a re s i d e n c e on Bl ackwell Nur se ry Ro ad , an d di sc ov ered a m et ha m

ph et am in e m anuf

actur in g lab. Po li ce fo un d gu ns at th is ad dr es s
5as well , an d Jo ne s “ cl ai m ed po ss es si on of th os e fir earm s.” Pri or po li ce in ve st ig at io n

rev eal ed th at Jo ne s ha d en ga ge d in m et ha m ph et am in e m an uf

actur in g act iv ity . Jo ne s ad m it te d th at th e go ve rn m en t co ul d pr ov e th e fact s bo th as pr of fere d an d as st at ed in t h e f a c t u al res um e. The di stric t co ur t , fin di ng th at Jo ne s pl ed kn owi ng ly an d
vo lu nt ari ly an d an ad equa te factua l ba si s supp orte d th e ch arg es , acce pt ed hi s pl ea to Co un ts 1, 4 , and9. Jo ne s fi le d, and th e di st ric t cou rt gra nt ed , a nu m be r of un op po se d m ot io ns to
co nt in ue se nt en ci ng so th at he co ul d pu rs ue op po rtu ni ti es to co op erat e. In Decem be r 20 10 , ho wev er, Po well m ov ed to wit hd r a w a s t ria l co un se l ba se d on a po te nt ia l
co nf li ct of in te res t th at ha d ari se n aft er Jo ne s pl ed gu il ty. The di st ric t co urt gr an te d Po well ’s m ot io n a ndap po in te d s ub st itut e co un se l. Thro ug h subs ti tu te co un se l, Jo ne s m ov ed to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea ba se d on pr ev io us tri al co un se l’s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e an d t he go ve rn m en t’s fa il ur e to fil e a
subs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io n. At a he ari ng on th is m ot io n, Jo ne s ad m it t e d t h a t pr ev io us tri al co un se l’s actua l co nf li ct cam e ab ou t aft er he en te red hi s pl ea. The
co ur t de ni ed Jo ne s’s m ot io n to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea, bu t, in th e al te rn at iv e,
co ns tru ed Jo ne s’s arg um e n t s t o rai se a cl ai m th at th e go ve rn m en t vi ol at ed hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht s fo r fai li ng to fil e a subs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io n. Afte r pe rm it ti ng Jo ne s to cal l se ve ral wit ne ss es who te st ifi ed ab ou t th e ex te nt of hi s co op erat io n, th e
6co ur t di rect ed hi m to fil e a writ te n m ot io n exp la in in g hi s du e pr oc es s arg um en t and

th e rel ie f th athe so ug ht
. In acco rd an ce wit h th e di st ric t co ur t’s di rect iv e, Jo ne s f i l e d a mo ti on fo r

“ sp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce at se nt en ci ng ,” in whi ch he reque st ed th at th e co ur t co m pe l th e go ve rn ment to fil e a subs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io n pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 5K1 .1. Jo ne s co nt en de d th at th e go ve rn m en t br each ed th e pl ea ag reem en t be cau se it refu se d to fil e a § 5K1 .1 m ot io n de sp it e hi s subs tant ia l as si st an ce. He al so co nt en de d th at th e go ve rn m en t act ed in ba d fai th , an d wit ho ut a rat io na l rel at io n to a le gi ti m at e pu rp os e, by in du ci ng hi m to pl ead gu il ty wit h th e pr om is e th at it w ou ld fai rly ev al ua te hi s
co op erat io n, b utth en arb it rari ly refus in g t o fi le a subs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io n. To supp ort hi s m ot io n fo r sp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce, Jo ne s subm it te d se ve ral swo rn affi da vi ts fro m cri m in al de fen se at to rn ey s who ha d ne go ti at e d p le as wit h Ass is ta nt Uni te d St at es Att orne y (“ AUSA”) Glo rid a Bed well , th e pr os ecu to r in hi s cas e. The se at to rn ey s di sc us se d in st an ces whe re th ei r cl ie nt s co op erat ed pu rs ua nt to th ei r pl ea ag reem en ts wit h th e go ve rn m en t, bu t AUSA Bed well refu se d to fil e a subs ta nt ia las si st an ce m ot io n, o r di d n otfil e o ne at t he ti m e th ey de si red
. A t Jo ne s’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t ad dr es se d th is m ot io n. Th e go ve rn m en t subm it te d th at pa rt of th e reas on in g be hi nd it s de ci si on to refu se § 5K1 .1
re duct io ns was to m ai nt ai n a de fen da nt ’s cred ib il it y in fu tu re prose cutio ns, expla ini ng
7th at op po si ng at to rn ey s co ul d ex pl oi t su cces si ve se nt en ce redu ct io ns on cro ss ex am in at io n. In ad di ti on , it ha d an in te res t in pr es erv in g an in cen ti ve fo r de fen da nt s to co nt in ue as si st in g in ve st ig at or s aft er th ey were se nt en ced
. The go ve rn m en t fu rth er
ex pl ai ne d th at , whe n a cri m in al de fen da nt ha d co op erat ed in a way th at co ul d qu al ify
as subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce, it s po li cy was to ha ve th e i n d i v i d u al pr os ecu to r subm it a writ te n fo rm to th e cri m in al di vi si on ch ie f, who m ad e th e ul ti m at e de ci si on on whe th er to fil e. It no te d th at AUSA B e d w e l l h a d in fact subm it te d a subs ta nt ia las si st an ce fo rm in Jo ne s’s cas e, bu t th e cri m in al di vi si on ch ie f de ci de d ag ai ns t fil in g
a m ot io n at tha t po in t becaus e th ere st il l were way s in whi ch Jo ne s co ul d be he lp fu l
an d h e wan te d t o m ax im iz e Jo ne s’s cr ed ib il it y . The di st ric t co urt de ni ed Jo ne s’s m ot io n fo r sp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce. The co urt cred it ed th e go ve rn m en t’s de sc rip ti on of it s pr oc es s whe n de c i d i n g whe th er to fil e
subs ta nt ia l-a ss i s t a n c e m ot io ns . Bec au se AUSA Bed well ’s de ci si on was subjec t to
supe rv is ory ov ers ig ht , it fo un d th at he r st an da rd s were no t arb it rary, bu t subjec t to a p o l i c y th at tre at ed al l de fen da nt s equa ll y . It fu rth er fo un d th at th e go ve rn m en t’s art ic ul at ed reas on in Jo ne s’s pa rti cu la r cas e , na m el y , en su rin g th at he co nt in ue d to
co op erat e, was rat io na ll y rel at edto a le gi ti m at e g ov ern m en t p ur po se . Pro ceed in g t o i m

po si ti on of J on es ’s sen te nc e, th e g ov ern m en t reco m m en de d

“ a se nt en ce wit hi n th e gu id el in es as se t fo rth in th e PSI.” The di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed
8th at , al th ou gh th e gu id el in es reco m m en de d a to ta l se nt en ce of at le as t 57 0 m on th s , th e m an da to ry m in im

um to ta l of 40 y ears , or 48 0 m on th s, ad equa te l y sa ti sf ie d th e g oa ls in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Acco rd in gl y , th e di stric t co ur t se nt en ced Jo n e s t o 48 0 m on th s, wh ic h c on si st edof c on se cu ti ve im pr is on m en t t erm s o f 12 0 m on th s on Co un t 1 , 60 m on th s o n C ou nt4, an d 3 00 m on th s o n C ou nt9. II. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco ur t’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o wi th dr aw a g ui lt y pl ea fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta te s v. Br eh m , 44 2 F .3d12 91 , 12 98 (11 th Cir
. 20 06 ). W e g en eral ly revi ew de no vo whet he r th e g ov ern m en t h as bre ach eda pl ea ag reem en t
. Uni te d Sta te s v. De L a Ga rz a , 51 6 F .3d12 66 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Bu t i f th atis su e was no t ra is edbe fo re the di st ric t co ur t, i t wi ll be rev ie wedon ly fo r pl ai n e rro r. Id

. Und er thi s s ta nd ard , a cri m in al de fen da ntm us t p ro ve th at (1 ) an erro r oc cu rred ; (2 ) th e err orwas p la in ; (3 ) th e err oraffe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s; an d (4 ) th e err orser io us ly affect edth e fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs . Id. The fav or edrem edy

fora br each of t he pl ea ag reem en t i s s pe ci fic pe rfo rm an ce, p art ic ul arl y wher e th ere i s l it tl e que st io n t ha t t he de fen da nten te red th e p le a kno win gl y

an d v ol un ta ril y . Uni te d Sta te s v. J oh ns on , 13 2 F .3d62 8, 6 31 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . “ [W] he n apl ea re st s i n any sig ni fic an t d eg ree o n apro m is e o r
9ag reem en t o f th e p ro se cu to r, so th atitcan be sai d t o b e p artof t he in du cem en t o r

co ns id erat io n, s uc h p ro m is e m us t b e fu lfi ll ed .” Sa nt ob el lo v. New Y ork , 40 4 U.S. 25 7, 2 62 , 92 S.Ct . 49 5, 4 99 , 30 L.Ed.2d42 7 (1 97 1) . Butth e g ov ern m en t d oe s n ot br each th e p le a ag reem en t b y de cl in in g t o fi le a subs tant ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io n whe n the pl ea ag reem en t l eav es th atde ci si on to th e g ov ern m en t’s s ol e d is cret io n. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Fo rn ey , 9 F.3 d 1 49 2, 1 49 9- 15 00 & n .2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3)
. A cou rt m ay

pe rm ita de fen da ntto wit hd raw h is gu il ty ple a p rio r to
se nt en ci ng if i t fi nd s t ha t t he de fen da ntest ab li sh eda “ fai r an d ju streas on ” fo r do in g s o. Fe d.R .Cri m .P. 11 (d )(2 )(B) . In d et erm in in g i f a rea so n i s fa ir andjus t
co ur ts co ns id er wh et he r: ( 1) th e d efen da ntbe ne fit te d fr om “ cl os e as si st an ce o f
co un se l” at t he ti m e; (2) th e p le a was kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry ; (3 ) jud ic ia l
res ou rces wou ldbe co ns erv ed ; an d (4 ) gr an ti ng th e d efen da nt ’s m ot io n wo ul d pr ejud ic e th e g ov ern m en t. Breh m , 44 2 F .3dat 1 29 8 (uph ol di ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s de ni al of am ot io n t o wi th dr aw a g ui lt y pl ea wh ere t he de fen da ntex pr es se d
sa ti sf act io n wi th co un se l’s re pr es en ta ti on , con firm edth athe un de rs to odth e ap pl ic ab le sen te nc in g c on se qu en ces , hadhi s s en te nc in g h eari ng co nt in ue d thr ee ti m es , anddi d n otm ov e to wit hd raw fo r ap pr ox im at el y eig htm on th s af

te r he pl ed ); se e a ls o Un it ed

St at es v. Mor ia rt

y , 42 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 19 (11 th Cir . 20 05 )

10(d is cu ss in g t he th ree “ co re co nc ern [s ]” of Fed .R.Cri m .P. 11 th atm us t b e sa ti sf

ie d fo r a p le a to be kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry ). Gene ral ly, co urts wil l “ no t ev al ua te th e as si st an ce re nd eredby a defe nd an t of feri ng co op erat io n a s a t erm of h is pl ea ag reem en t u nl es s an d u nt il th e go ve rn m en t m ak es a . . . m ot io n fo r do wnwar d d ep artur e b as edon subs ta nt ia l
as si st an ce.” For ne

y , 9 F.3 d a t 1 50 1. In t he ab se nc e o f an ex pr es s p ro m is e o n t he go ve rn m en t’s p artto fil e a s ub st an ti al -as si st an ce m ot io n, co urts ret ai n t he
au th or it y to rev ie w th e g ov ern m en t’s fa il ur e to do so on ly for a co ns ti tu ti on al ly im pe rm is si bl e m ot iv at io n, s uc h a s “ race , rel ig io n o r ot he r arb it rary clas si fic at io n.” Id

. at15 01 -0 2 & n.4 . To ob ta in jud ic ia l re vi ew of th e g ov ern m en t’s d eci si on on a
subs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io n, a d efen da ntm us t n otsi m

pl y all eg e a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, b utm ak e a “ subs ta nt ia l s ho win g” to th is effe ct
. For ne y , 9 F.3 d a t 1 50 2. Whe n ade fen da ntcla im s m erel y th athe ha s p ro vi de d s ub st an ti al ass is ta nc e,
orsupp le m en ts th atcla im with “ ad di ti on al bu t g en eral iz edall eg at io ns of i m pr op er
m ot iv e”—he wil l n otbe en ti tl edto rel ie f. W ade v. Uni te d Sta te s , 50 4 U.S. 1 81 , 18 6, 1 12 S.Ct . 18 40 , 18 44 , 11 8 L.Ed .2d52 4 (1 99 2) . Sim il arl y , th e g ov ern m en t’s de ci si on to fil e a § 5K1 .1 m ot io n, o r de cl in e to do so , “ is no t re vi ewab le for arb it rari ne ss or b adfai th .” For ne y , 3 F.3 d a t 1 50 2 & n.5 (qu ot at io n o m it te d)
.

11W e co nc lu de th atbo th of J on es ’s m ot io ns lac ke d m eri t. In so far a s J on es

so ug htrel ie f ba se d o n ape rcei ve d b reac h o f hi s p le a ag reem en t, n o s uc h “ br each ”
oc cu rred
. Se e For ne

y , 9 F.3 d a t 1 49 9- 15 00 . Jo ne s en te redin to a pl ea ag reem en t wit h t he go ve rn m en t t ha t l eftto th e g ov ern m en t’s “ so le di sc ret io n” sev eral pe rti ne ntis su es , in cl ud in g: (1) whet he r hi s co op erat io n a m ou nt edto “ subs tant ia l
as si st an ce”; an d (2 ) th e ap pl ic ab il it y of U.S.S.G. § 5K1 .1, as op po se d t o R ul e 3 5. Thu s, co nt rary to J on es ’s cha ract eri zat io n o f th e p le a ag reem en t, t he go ve rn m en t
on ly agree d t o c on si de r hi s co op erat io n i n t he co nt ex t o f a fu tu re s ub st an ti al

as si st an ce m ot io n, n otto actua ll y fil e o ne . Se e For ne

y , 9 F.3 d a t 1 50 0 n .2. Irre sp ect iv e o f Jo ne s’s s ub jecti ve in te ntat t he ti m e h e si gn edth e p le a ag reem en t, gi ve n t he ag reem en t’s wri tt en term s— as well as h is de ni al at h is pl ea h eari ng th at he was p ro m is edan yth in g o ut si de of t he writ te n p le a ag reem en t—he fai le d t o de m on st rat e th athe was i nduc ed , as am at te r of law, t o p le adgu il ty by

a pr om is e th athe wou ldrece iv e a s ub st an ti al - as si st an ce re du ct io n. Cf . Sa nt ob el lo , 40 4 U.S. at26 2, 9 2 S .Ct. at49 5. The re ar e n o o th er i nd ic at io ns th atJo ne s’s s ho ul d h av e b een all owe d t o wit hd raw h is pl ea. Se e Bre hm , 44 2 F .3dat 1 29 8. J on es ex pr es sl y st at edat h is pl ea h eari ng th athe was s at is fie d wi th tri al co un se l. Add it io na ll y , th e d is tri ct
co ur t co nf

irmed th athe un de rs to od : (1 ) th e 4 0- y ear m in im um to ta l s en te nc e th at
12he face d o n t he th ree o ffen se s t o wh ic h h e p le d; (2) it s i nabi li ty to av oi d t hi s t ot al

se nt en ce ab se nta subs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io n fi le d b y th e g ov ern m en t; (3) th e el em en ts of e ach ch arg edoff en se ; an d (4 ) th e ri gh ts he wou ldrel in qu is h b y pe rs is ti ng wit h agu il ty ple a. Se e Mo ri ar ty , 42 9 F .3dat 1 01 9- 20 . W e al so no te th atth e 1 5- m on th lap se be twee n J on es ’s gu il ty ple a an d h is m ot io n, dur in g wh ic h th e co ur t co nt in ue d h is sen te nc in g h eari ng on sev eral oc cas io ns , su gg es te d t ha t t he wit hd rawal of h is pl ea wo ul d was te jud ic ia l re so ur ces an d p reju di ce t he go ve rn m en t. Se e Bre hm , 44 2 F .3dat 1 29 8- 99
. Mo reo ve r, Jo ne s ar ti cu la te d n o b as is up on whi chto co m pe l s pe ci fic pe rfo rm an ce. Se e, e.g . , Jo hn so n , 13 2 F .3dat 6 31 . At th e o ut se t, we o bs erv e th at th e qua li ty of Jo ne s’s as si st an ce t o t he go ve rn m en t was lar ge ly irrel ev an t t o b ot h th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on an d o urres ol ut io n o f hi s ap pe ll at e ch al le ng e. Se e W ade , 50 4 U.S. at18 7, 1 12 S.Ct . at 1 84 4. In so far a s J on es att em pt edto m ak e h is
cas e wit h a ffi da vi ts fro m ot he r at to rn ey s tha t al le ge d apa tt ern of i m pr op er in du cem en t o n t he pa rt o f th e g ov ern m en t, t he se affi da vi ts am ou nt edto li tt le m or e th an th e at to rn ey s’ subjec ti ve op in io ns th atth e g ov ern m en t ac te d i n b adfai th by fai li ng to fil e su bs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io ns in th ei r own cli en ts ’ cas es . Se e W ade , 50 4 U.S. at18 6, 1 12 S.Ct . at 1 84 4; For ne y , 9 F.3 d a t 1 50 2 n .5. In an y ev en t, ab se ntau th or it y

to supp ort h is pro po si ti on th atth e g ov ern m en t’s “pa tt ern ” o f
13in co ns is te nc y inth e m an ne r in whi ch itde cl in edto fil e § 5K1 .1 m ot io ns am ou nt ed to an“ arb it rary clas si fic at io n,” Jo ne s’s af fid av it s fa il edto supp or t an all eg at io n,
m uc h l es s a “ subs ta nt ia l s ho win g,” of aco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Se e Forne y , 9 F.3 d a t 1 50 2. Fi na ll y , Jo ne s’s al te rn at iv e arg um en t t ha t t he go ve rn m en t b reac he d t he pl ea ag reem en t b y

reco m m en di ng a wit hi n- gu id el in e se nt en ce, wh ic h h e rai se d fo r th e fir stti m e o n app eal , can no t s uc ceedun de r th e p la in erro r st an da rd
. Se e De La Gar za , 51 6 F .3dat1 26 9. Whil e th e g ov ern m en t d idap pe ar t o b reac h i ts pro m is e in th e p le a ag reem en t t o re co m m en d asen te nc e atth e lo w endof t he gu id el in e
ran ge , he c an no t s ho w an a ffec t o n h is subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts be cau se th e g ov ern m en t’s
reco m m en da ti on of awit hi n- gu id el in e se nt en ce, h adno ap pa ren t ef fecton th e di st ric t co urt, wh ic h i m

po se d ato ta l s en te nc e n earl y eig hty ears sh or te r th an th e lo w endof h is gu id el in e ran ge . Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Pa nt le , 63 7 F .3d11 72 , 11 77
- 78 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (h ol di ng th at , eve n i f th e d is tri ctco ur t erro ne ou sl y cal cu la te d a de fen da nt ’s off

en se lev el , th aterro r di d n otaffe cthi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s b ecau se it
was un cl ear tha t h e wou ldno t h av e rec ei ve d t he same sen te nc e b utforth e err or ) III. Whe n ade fen da ntfai ls to ob ject t o a n a ss ert edFed .R.Cri m .P. 11 vi ol at io n be fo re t he di st ric t co urt, we re vi ew fo r pl ai n e rro r. Mor ia rt y , 42 9 F .3dat 1 01 9.
14The de fen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n t o s at is fy all requi rem en ts of t he pl ai n e rro r te st
. Id

. To p rev ai l u nd er thi s s ta nd ardin th e co nt ex t o f a Ru le 11 erro r, a d efen da nt

“ m us t s ho w a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utforth e err or , he wo ul d n otha ve
en te redth e p le a.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Do min gu ezBeni te z , 54 2 U.S. 7 4, 8 3, 1 24 S.Ct
. 23 33 , 23 40 , 15 9 L.Ed .2d15 7 (2 00 4)
. One of t he requi rem en ts in Ru le 11 is th atth e d is tri ctco ur t i nd ep en de nt ly

“ de te rm in e th atth ere i s a f actua l b as is forth e p le a.” Fed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (b )(3 ). Whe n e va lu at in g i f a d is tri ctco ur t co m pl ie d wi th th is pro vi si on , we in qu ire s

“ whe th er t he di st ric t co urt was pre se nt edwit h e vi de nc e fro m whi ch itco ul d
reas on ab ly findth atth e d efen da ntwas g ui lt y .” Uni te d Sta te s v. C ama ch o , 23 3 F .3d13 08 , 13 17 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (quo ta ti on an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . Rele va nt to th is in qu iry are th e fac ts in cl ud edin th e g ov ern m en t’s p ro ffer , and , if ap pl ic ab le , any facts to whi ch th e d efen da ntha s s ti pu la te d i n wri ti ng as p artof t he pl ea ag reem en t. Se e id

. ; Uni te d Sta te s v. Fr ye , 40 2 F .3d11 23 , 11 28 -2 9 (1 1t h C ir. 20 05 ) (ev al ua ti ng th e su ffi ci en cy of t he factua l b as is to pro ve a § 9 24 (c)( 1) of fen se in li gh t o f th e “ factua l re su m e”). To es tabl is h a§ 9 24 (c)( 1) vi ol at io n, the go ve rn m en t m us t s ho w th at : (1 ) th e de fen da ntpo ss es se d t he fir earm ; an d (2 ) th e fi rearm in qu es ti on “ he lp ed , fu rth ered , pro m ot ed , or a dv an ced ” th e al le ge d dru g t raff ic ki ng act iv it y . Se e Uni te d
15St at es v. Timmo ns , 28 3 F .3d12 46 , 12 52 (11 th Cir .20 02 ). Reg ard in g t he fir st

el em en t, wh en a de fen da ntown s o r ot he rwis e ex erci se s co nt ro l o ve r a res id en ce whe re co nt rab an d i s fo un d, h e m ay be fou ndin co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f th e
co nt rab an d. Uni te d Sta te s v. Ga rc ia , 44 7 F .3d13 27 , 13 38 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Reg ard in g t he sec on d e le m en t, t he re m us t b e “ so m e n ex us be twee n t he fir earm an d th e dru g s el li ng op erat io n.” Ti mmon s , 28 3 F .3dat 1 25 3 (h ol di ng th atth e go ve rn m en t co ul d p ro ve th atth e g un s wer e p os se ss edin fur th eran ce o f dr ug tra ffi ck in g wi th ev id en ce t ha t g un s wer e fo un d i n ares id en ce al on g wi th m at eri al s in di cat iv e o f drug di st rib ut io n) . In o th er wo rd s, t he gu n m us t “ faci li ta te , or h av e th e p ot en ti al of f

aci li ta ti ng , th e dru g t raff

ic ki ng off en se .” Frye , 40 2 F .3dat 1 12 8 (quo ta ti on om it te d)
. Here, J on es , who di d n otrai se anob jecti on be fo re t he di st ric t co ur t t o t he factua l b as is supp orti ng Co un t 9 , fai ls to de m on st rat e p la in erro r in th e co ur t’s
acce pt an ce o f hi s g ui lt y

pl ea i n t hi s re sp ect
. Se e Mo ri ar ty , 42 9 F .3dat 1 01 9. Bet ween th e p ro fferan d t he factua l re su m e, th e d is tri ctco ur t h adsu ffi ci en t fa ct s up on whi ch to supp ort J on es ’s pl ea. Fed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (b )(3 ); Frye , 40 2 F .3dat 11 28 -2 9. Si gn ifi can tl y , Jo ne s ag reedto all fact s co nt ai ne d t he rei n. Th e p ro ffer in di cat edth at , on Decem be r 29 , 20 08 , th e d at e ch arg edin Co un t 9 , po li ce di sc ov ereda m et ha m

ph et am in e m an uf

actur in g l ab at h is ad dr es s. Th e fac tu al
16res um e el ab or at edth atth e p ol ic e al so fou ndm et ha m ph et am in e o n h is pe rs on , and ps eu do ep he dr in e, di gi ta l s cal es , andba gg ie s i ns id e h is tra il er. Bec au se th e
reco ve redgu ns were fo un d i n c lo se pro xi m it y to th es e m at eri al s, a fa ct -fi nd er
co ul d i nf er t ha t t he y

fur th ereddru g- tra ffi ck in g a ct iv it y . Se e Ti mmon s , 28 3 F .3dat 12 53
. Alt ho ug h J on es co rrec tl y hi gh li gh ts th athe de ni edto po li ce tha t h e o wne d th e m et ha m

ph et am in e m an uf

actur in g m at eri al s o ut si de of t he tra il er, t hi s fa ctdi d
no t ex on erat e h im , as h e in si st s. Ra th er, t he factth athe res id edalo ne at t he tra il er gi ve s ri se to anin fere nc e o f po ss es si on , and , inan y ev en t, J on es ex pr es sl y ad m it te d t ha t h e res id edin th e tr ai le r an d e ve ryth in g i ns id e it , in cl ud in g m at eri al s in di cat iv e o f drug tra ffi ck in g, b el on ge d t o h im
. Se e Gar ci a , 44 7 F .3dat 1 33 8. As
su ch , th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce upo n wh ic h the di st ric t co ur t re as on ab ly cou ld in fer t ha t J on es ’s gu ns faci li ta te d, o r atlea stha d t he po te nt ia l t o fa ci li ta te , hi s
m et ha m ph et am in e m an uf

actur in g a ct iv it ie s. Se e Ca mac ho , 23 3 F .3dat 1 31 7; Frye , 40 2 F .3dat 1 12 8. IV. Whe re ap pr op ria te , we rev ie w cla im s fo r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l de no vo as m ix edqu es ti on s o f la w andfact
. Ca de rn o v . Uni te d Sta te s , 25 6 F .3d 12 13 , 12 16 -1 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1)
. 17In Mas sa ro v. Uni te d Sta te s , 53 8 U.S. 5 00 , 12 3 S .Ct. 1 69 0, 1 55 L.Ed.2d71 4

(2 00 3) , th e Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t fa il ur e to rai se in effe ct iv e-as si st an ceof -co un se l cl ai m s o n d ire ctap pe al wou ldno t b ar s uc h c la im s fr om be in g ra is edfor th e fi rs t t im e in a co ll at eral att ack
. Id

. at50 9, 1 23 S.Ct . at 1 69 6. Inarri vi ng at t hi s
co nc lu si on , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t i n m os t ca se s, t he reco rdwas i na de qu at e to rai se anin effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m on di rectap pe al be cau se th e tr ia l ev id en ce
was de vo te d t o g ui lt -o r-i nn oc en ce i ss ue s, as op po se d t o the reas on in g b eh in d
co un se l’s ac ti on s. Id

. at50 4- 05 , 12 3 S .Ct. at16 94 . It o bs erv edth atth e rec or d

“ m ay co nt ai n n o e vi de nc e o f al le ge d e rro rs of o m is si on , m uc h l es s t he reas on s
un de rlyin g t he m .” Id

. at50 5, 1 23 S.Ct . at 1 69 4. Ab se nta factua l re co rdtai lo red to th is pu rp os e, co ns id erat io n o f in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s o n d ire ctap pe al ris ke d the reject io n o f m eri to rio us cla im s an d was te d ju di ci al res ou rces . Id

. at 50 6, 1 23 S.Ct . at 1 69 5. By con tra st , ithe ldth atth e d is tri ctco ur t o n c ol la te ral
rev ie w cou ldha nd le su ch cla im s m or e effi ci en tl y . Id

. at50 6- 07 , 12 3 S .Ct. at 16 95 . As su ch , “ an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m is pro pe rly rais edin a
co ll at eral att ackon th e co nv ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5,” as o pp os edto di rect ap pe al
. Uni te d Sta tes v. Mer ri ll , 51 3 F .3d12 93 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on s
an d a lt erat io n o m it te d)
.

18W e n ot e th atbo th Jo ne s an d t he go ve rn m en t co nc ur th atth e rec or d i s
su ffi ci en t t o a dju di cat e th e m eri ts of h is in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s. Nev erthe le ss , con si de rat io n o f th es e cl ai m s o n d ire ctap pe al is un warrant ed
. Si gn ifi can tl y , Jo ne s’s i ne ffec ti ve -as si st an ce al le ga ti on s t ha t h e rai se s o n app eal in cl ud e err or s o f omiss io n, s uc h a s t he fai lu re t o a de qu at el y ov ers ee h is de br ie fin g, whi chtri al co un se l h as y etto ad dr es s. Se e Ma ss ar o , 53 8 U.S. at50 5- 06 , 12 3 S .Ct. at16 94 . Mor eo ve r, ev en if t he av ai labl e rec or d fa ci al ly con tra di ct edon e o r m or e of Jo ne s’s cl ai m s, h e rai se s o th er cl ai m s t ha t, d es pi te th e g ov ern m en t’s i ns is te nc e,
are n ot“ fri vo lo us ,” an d i t ar gu ab ly w ou ldbe in ap pr op ria te forus to res ol ve th em in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e. Se e Mer ri ll , 51 3 F .3dat 1 30 8; se e a ls o Un it ed St at es v. Bar ne tt e , 10 F.3d15 53 , 15 56 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (“ anap pe ll at e co ur t d oe s n otfin d fact s” ). Acco rd in gl y , we dec li ne to co ns id er J on es ’s in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce ch al le ng e. V. Gen eral ly, we ex am in e a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e fo r bo th pro cedur al an d
subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s u nd er an ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard
. Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 91 , 16 9 L.Ed .2d44 5 (2 00 7) . Butdi st ric t
co ur ts rem ai n b ou ndby m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc es setfor th incri m in al st atut es . Uni te d Sta te s v. S he lt on , 40 0 F .3d13 33 n.1 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
.

19In th e p res en t ca se , Jo ne s’s 4 0- y ear t ot al sen te nc e is no t re vi ewab le for

“ reas on ab le ne ss ” b ecau se itrep res en te d the ag gr eg at e o f th e m an da to ry m in im um te rm s o f im

pr is on m en t o n C ou nt s 1 , 4, an d 9
. Se e S he lt on , 40 0 F .3dat 1 33 3 n .10 ;
se e a ls o 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A), (c)( 1) (C); 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(A). J on es ’s
ex pl an at io ns as t o wh y

hi s 4 0- y ear t ot al sen te nc e was bo th un iq ue an d
un reas on ab le di d n otpe rm itth e d is tri ctco ur t t o d ep artfro m co nt ro ll in g p rece de nt
an d s en te nc e h im

be lo w th e m in im

um st atut ory pe na lt y foreach off

en se of
co nv ic ti on . Se e S

he lt on , 40 0 F .3dat 1 33 3 n .10
. As a c on se qu en ce, J on es ’s ch al le ng e to th e rea so nabl en es s o f hi s s en te nc e is wit ho utm eri t. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm Jo ne s’s co nv ic ti on s an d t ot al sen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

20