IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40300

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

THOMAS GARCIA, JR., also known as Thomas Garcia,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-994-6

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Garcia, Jr., challenges his guilty-plea conviction and sentence 

for possession, with intent to distribute, 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 & 18 U.S.C. § 2. In challenging his conviction, 

he contends his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because, prior to 

his pleading guilty, the district court misstated the statutory minimum and 

maximum terms of imprisonment. Therefore, Garcia asserts: he pleaded

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40300 Document: 00513151210 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2015
No. 14-40300

2

guilty without being correctly advised of the statutory range of punishment; 

and the court’s failure violates Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1). 

Because he did not object to the claimed Rule 11 error in district court, 

review is for plain error. E.g., United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). 

Under that standard, Garcia must show a forfeited plain (clear or obvious) 

error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the error, but 

should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of the proceedings. Id. Regarding Garcia’s being required to show 

his substantial rights were affected, and for the reasons that follow, the record 

does not support a determination that, but for the court’s initial misstatement 

regarding the statutory penalties, it is reasonably probable that Garcia, who 

was later advised by the court of the correct statutory minimum and maximum 

sentences, as well as by other sources, would not have pleaded guilty. See 

United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). 

Rule 11 requires a district court to “inform the defendant of, and 

determine that the defendant understands . . . any maximum possible penalty, 

including imprisonment, fine, and term of supervised release[, and] any 

mandatory minimum penalty”. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(H), (I). Although the 

court initially informed Garcia incorrectly about his penalty range, it

ultimately admonished him properly about his sentencing exposure. After the 

court asked Garcia whether he understood the penalties and intended to alter 

his guilty plea in the light of the revised admonishment, Garcia stated he 

understood his sentencing exposure, and the revised penalties did not change

his intention to plead guilty. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-74 

(1977) (noting that sworn statements in open court are entitled to a “strong 

presumption of verity”). Thus, the court did not violate Rule 11 and the guilty 

 Case: 14-40300 Document: 00513151210 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2015
No. 14-40300

3

plea was knowing and voluntary. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(H), (I); Boykin 

v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243–44 (1969).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-40300 Document: 00513151210 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/12/2015