[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 21 - 10930 Non - Argument Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff
- Appellee, versus VICTOR MANUEL BECERRA - RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Victor Manuel R Becerra, a.k.a. Victor M Becerra Rodriguez, a.k.a. Victor M Becerra, a.k.a. Victor Manuel Becerra, a.k.a. Victor Becerra
- Rodriguez, a.k.a. Victor M Becerra
- Rodriguez, a.k.a. Victor Manue l Becerra - Rodriguez, a.k.a. Manuel Rodriguez
- Hernandez, USCA11 Case: 21-10930 Date Filed: 11/05/2021 Page: 1 of 102 Opinion of the Court 21 - 10930 a.k.a. Gualberto Cruz Clemente, Defendant
- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:20
- cr - 00081 - CG - N - 1

____________________ Before L AGOA , B RASHER , and E DMONDSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Victor Becerra - Rodriguez appeals his conviction after pleading guilty to aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). 1 On appeal, Becerra
- Rodriguez contends the district court committed plain error
-- under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3)
-- by

1 Becerra - Rodriguez raises no challenge to his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation or removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) . Nor does Becerra - Rodriguez challenge the length of his sentence . USCA11 Case: 21-10930 Date Filed: 11/05/2021 Page: 2 of 1021 - 10930 Opinion of the Court 3 failing to secure a sufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea . No reversible error has been shown; we affirm. In May 2020, p olice stopped a car driven by Becerra
- Rodriguez . During the traffic stop, Becerra
- Rodriguez presented a driver’s license that included a photograph of Becerra
- Rodriguez but a name and date
- of
- birth belonging to another person (G.C.) . Becerra - Rodriguez late r told officers that he had purchased the driver’s license and a Social Security card (also in G.C.’s name) for $1,500 . A federal grand jury charged Becerra
- Rodriguez with illegal reentry after deportation or removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (C ount One), and with aggravated identity theft (Count Two) . In Count Two, the indictment explicitly alleged that Becerra - Rodriguez “did knowingly possess and use, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another individual . . . during and in relation to a felony violation [of] 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), knowing that the means of identification belonged to another actual person identified herein by initials G.C.” At the plea colloquy, the district court confirmed that Becerra - Rodriguez had seen a co py of the indictment; also, he had an opportunity to discuss the indictment with his lawyer . The district court before Becerra
- Rodriguez summarized the charges against him . The court said that Count Two charged Becerra
- Rodriguez with “knowing that the mean s of identification belonged to another actual person whose initials were GC.” USCA11 Case: 21-10930 Date Filed: 11/05/2021 Page: 3 of 104 Opinion of the Court 21 - 10930 Becerra - Rodriguez told the district court that he was pleading guilty of his own free will and because he was “in fact guilty.” The district court then questioned Becerra
- Ro driguez about the circumstances of the offense . Pertinent to this appeal, the district court asked Becerra
- Rodriguez whether Becerra
- Rodriguezknew when he possessed the identification cards that the identifying information belonged to another person . In r esponse, Becerra Rodriguez asked to confer with his lawyer . This exchange then followed: [DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, we knew that it did not belong to Mr. Becerra
- Rodriguez. THE COURT: Okay . So you knew that the number wasn’t your Social Security numbe r? THE DEFENDANT: Yes.THE COURT: And did you present that document to someone to claim that you were in fact entitled to be in the United States? THE DEFENDANT: Yes.THE COURT: Are you satisfied with that factual basis . . . ? [PROSECUTOR]: Yes, sir . We w ould add that the defendant gave a statement after he was USCA11 Case: 21-10930 Date Filed: 11/05/2021 Page: 4 of 1021 - 10930 Opinion of the Court 5confronted by the officers on the date in the indictment indicating he knew the means of identification did belong to a real person . So with that addition, I think that would be sufficient. THE COUR T: Are you satisfied?

. . . [DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, I know that that’s listed in the discovery . But we had disputed that . However, he does admit that he did
-- and this is in evidence
-- that he did give a date of birth which also belonged to the p erson listed on the Social Security card. Immediately following this discussion, Becerra
- Rodriguez pleaded guilty. 2 The district court accepted the plea, finding that Becerra - Rodriguez’s guilty plea was “supported by an independent basis in fact containi ng each of the essential elements of the offense.” The district court later sentenced Becerra
- Rodriguez to 41months’ imprisonment for Count One and a mandatory consecutive 24 - month sentence for Count Two . On appeal, Becerra
- Rodriguez contends the district court erred in finding the factual basis sufficient to support his guilty plea
2 Becerra - Rodriguez entered his guilty plea with out a written plea agreement . USCA11 Case: 21-10930 Date Filed: 11/05/2021 Page: 5 of 106 Opinion of the Court 21 - 10930 on Count Two . Becerra - Rodriguez argues that the record fails to establish adequately that Becerra
- Rodriguez knew that the identifying information charged in Count Two b elonged to a real person . Because Becerra - Rodriguez raises this argument squarely for the first time on appeal, we review his argument only for plain error. 3 See United States v. Puentes
- Hurtado , 794 F.3d 1278, 1285
- 86 (11th Cir. 2015) (reviewing for plain error the defendant’s challenge
-- first raised on appeal
-- to the sufficiency of the factual basis for his guilty plea) . Under the plain
- error standard, the defendant must show (1) an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected his substantial rights . Id . at 1286 . If the defendant makes that showing, we have discretion to correct the error only if the error “seriouslyaffect[s] the fairness integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id . An error is “plain” if it is “clear” or “obvious.” United States v. Gonzalez , 834 F.3d 1206, 1218 (11th Cir. 2016) . When a plainerror is shown, the defendant then bears the burden of demonstrating that the error affected his substantial rights . Id . To show that a plain error affe cted substantial rights in the context of a guilty plea, a defendant “must show a reasonable probability that, but for the 3 The government says we should decline to review the merits of Becerra
Rodriguez’s argument based on the doctrine of invited error . Because we cannot conclude reasonably that Becerra
- Rodriguez induced or invited the districtcourt to determine that a sufficient factual basis supported the plea, the invited
- error doctrine is inapplicable . For background, see United States v. Love , 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006) . USCA11 Case: 21-10930 Date Filed: 11/05/2021 Page: 6 of 1021 - 10930 Opinion of the Court 7 error, he would not have entered the plea.” See United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004) . To obtain a conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), the government must prove, among other things, that“the defendant knew that the means of identification at issue belonged to another person.” Flores
- Figueroa v. United States , 556 U.S. 646, 657 (2009) . A defendan t’s knowledge that the means ofidentification belonged to a real person may be proven using circumstantial evidence . United States v. Gomez
- Castro , 605 F.3d 1245, 1249 (11th Cir. 2010) . We have said that “both the circumstances in which an offender obtain ed a victim’s identity and theoffender’s later misuse of that identity can shed light on the offender’s knowledge about that identity.” See United States v. Delva , 922 F.3d 1228, 1249 (11th Cir. 2019). We cannot conclude that the district court plainly erred in finding the factual basis sufficient to support Becerra
- Rodriguez’s guilty plea. Becerra
- Rodriguez testified that he knew the identifying information did not belong to him and that he used the information to claim falsely that he was lawfully in the United States . That Becerra
- Rodriguez paid $1,500 for the identification cards and presented the purchased driver’s license for government inspection during a traffic stop further supports a finding that Becerra
- Rodriguez knew the identifying informati on belonged to a real person . See Gomez - Castro , 605 F.3d at 1249 (concluding that evidence that the defendant paid $2,500 for a birth certificate and a social security card and then used those documents to apply for a United States USCA11 Case: 21-10930 Date Filed: 11/05/2021 Page: 7 of 108 Opinion of the Court 21 - 10930 passport, credit cards, and a driver’s license was sufficient to provebeyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the identifying information belonged to a real person) . Given the circumstances involved in Becerra
- Rodriguez’s acquisition of the identification cards an d his later misuse of those cards, the district courtcommitted no error that was “clear” or “obvious” in finding a sufficient factual basis existed. Moreover, Becerra - Rodriguez has failed to show that the supposed plain error affected his substantial righ ts . The record does show that Becerra
- Rodriguez understood that his offense includedas an element knowledge that the identifying information belonged to a real person . At the plea hearing, the district court confirmed that Becerra
- Rodriguez had reviewed t he indictment (which included the pertinent knowledge element) with his lawyer . The district court also advised Becerra
- Rodriguez that the charged offense included an allegation that Becerra
- Rodriguez knew “that the means of identification belonged to anot her actual person.” The discussion during the plea hearing about whether Becerra - Rodriguez knew that the identifying information belonged to a real person
-- and Becerra
- Rodriguez’s lawyer’s comment about an earlier dispute about the government’s attempt to introduce Becerra
- Rodriguez’s post
- arrest statement to that effect
-- further demonstrates that Becerra
- Rodriguez did understand that knowledge was an essential element . On appeal, Becerra
- Rodriguez says he would not have pleaded guilty had the distri ct court “required him to admit” that USCA11 Case: 21-10930 Date Filed: 11/05/2021 Page: 8 of 1021 - 10930 Opinion of the Court 9 he knew the identification belonged to a real person . But Becerra Rodriguez never contends that he did not know of the offense’s knowledge requirement when he pleaded guilty . Becerra - Rodriguez has shown no reasonable probability that

-- but for the alleged error
-- he would not have entered his plea . Becerra - Rodriguez had adequate notice of the knowledge element when he pleaded guilty and told the district court under oath that he was “in fact guilty” of the charged of fense . That Becerra
- Rodriguez never admitted expressly that he knew the identifying information belonged to a real person does not preclude a finding of a sufficient factual basis . See Puentes - Hurtado, 794 F.3d at 1287 (upholding a guilty plea under plain
- error review when the defendant admitted only to “most” of the government’s factual proffer but told the district court under oath that he was guilty and signed a plea agreement stating he was pleading guilty because he was “in fact guilty”) . We stress th at -- on plain
- error review -- Becerra - Rodriguez bears the burden of showing prejudice . Because Becerra - Rodriguez has presented no evidence establishing a reasonable probability that he would have declined to plead guilty absent the supposed error, Becerra - Rodriguez has failed to meet his burden . Cf. United States v. Innocent , 977 F.3d 1077, 1083 (noting that a defendant fails to satisfy his burden under plain
- error review when he presents no evidence that the purported error affected the outcome; “[w]hen t he record says little or nothing about the effect of the error, ‘the burden is the decisive factor.’”) . USCA11 Case: 21-10930 Date Filed: 11/05/2021 Page: 9 of 1010 Opinion of the Court 21 - 10930 AFFIRMED. 4

4 In his reply brief, Becerra
- Rodriguez contends for the first time that the district court failed to inform him adequately of the nature of the charges against him, in violation of Rule 11(b)(1)(G) . This argument is not properly before us in this appeal . See United States v. Whitesell , 314 F.3d 1251, 1256 (11th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that “issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived on appeal”) . USCA11 Case: 21-10930 Date Filed: 11/05/2021 Page: 10 of 10