FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 21, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 19 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-0 03 55 -BBM -ECS-3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us JAC K PADILLA, Defend an t-Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 1, 2 01 0) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Defen da nt -ap pe ll an t J ackPad il lawas c ha rg edwit h c on sp ira cy to po ss es swit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te m ari juan a, co ns pi racy to c omm itm on ey lau nd eri ng , and ai di ng an d abe tt in g m on ey lau nd eri ng , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 an d 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 19 56 (a) a nd2. He ag reedto pl eadgu il ty to t he dru g o ffen se . The writ te n p le a ag reem en t i nc lu de d t he go ve rn m en t’s p ro m is e to in fo rm th e co urt o f Pad il la ’s coo pe rat io n a ndpo te nt ia ll y m ov e fo r a reduc ti onin hi s se nt en ce b as edon hi s s ub st an ti al ass is tanc e. The a gr eem en t al so co nt ai ne d a waiv er-o f-ap pe al pro vi si on in whi ch Pad il lawaiv edhi s ri gh t t o d ire ct ly app eal or co ll at eral ly atta ck

hi s co nv ic ti onan d s en te nc e u nl es s the co urt i m po se d asen te nc e wit h a n upwa rdde pa rtu re o r va ria nc e. At t he ch an ge -o f-p le a h eari ng , th e co urt co nf irmed th atPad il laha d re adan d
un de rs to odth e wai ve r pr ov is io n a ndth athe vo lu nt ari ly agree d t o t he term s o f th e pl ea ag reem en t. Aft er d is cu ss in g t he ch arg es ag ai ns t h im an d t he rig ht s h e wou ld gi ve up by ple ad in g g ui lt y , th e co urt d et erm in edth atPad il lawas fr eel y an d
vo lu nt ari ly ent eri ng a pl ea an d a dju di cat edhi m gu il ty. The pro ba ti on off

ic er co m pl et eda pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( PSI)
an d d et erm in edth atth e g ui de li ne ran ge for Pad il la ’s off

en se was 2 35 to 29 3
m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. The pro ba ti on off ic er n ot edth atPad il laha d b een de br ie fedm

ul ti pl e ti m es an d t ha t Pa di ll a reque st eda do wnwar d d ep artur e in hi s se nt en ce b as edon hi s s ub st an ti al ass is tanc e. He als o re qu es te d am in or -ro le 2reduc ti on un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2.

At s en te nc in g, af

te r li st en in g t o P ad il la ’s arg um en ts reg ard in g h is rol e in th e co ns pi racy, the di st ric t co urt d en ie d t he m in or -ro le reduc ti on , bu t ex pl ai ne d t ha t th e d eci si on was “ a cl os e o ne .” The c ou rt a ls o re jecte d a n e nh an cem en t fo r po ss es si on of aweap on , whi ch de crea se d P ad il la ’s gu id el in e ran ge to 18 8 t o 2 35
m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. The go ve rn m en t d idno t ad vi se th e co urt o f th e ex te ntof Pad il la ’s coo pe rat io n b utPad il ladi d n otob ject. Nev ert he le ss , th e co urt i m po se d a
se nt en ce o f 16 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, b el ow the advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge . Pad il lano w app eal s, ar gu in g 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

fai li ng to advi se th e co urt o f th e ex te ntof h is co op erat io n a ndth at th e co urt erredby den y in g h is m in or -ro le reduc ti on . W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er t he go ve rn m en t b reac he d apl ea ag reem en t. 1 Uni te d Sta te s v. Ma hi qu e , 15 0 F .3d13 30 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Whe re t he de fen da ntfai le d t o o bjec t i n t he di st ric t co urt, we re vi ew on ly for p la in erro r. Uni te d Sta te s v. Ro man o , 31 4 F .3d12 79 , 12 81 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Und er p la in -err or rev ie w, we m ay

reco gn iz e an erro r whe re t he re i s (1 ) an erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, (3 ) th ataffe ct s a d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts , and , if t he fir stth ree p ro ng s ar e

A sentenc e-a

ppeal waiver in a plea agree ment does not waive the rig ht to appea l a brea ch 1 of the plea

agree ment. See U

nited States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101, 1104- 05 (11th Cir. 2004).

3m et , in ou r di sc ret io n, (4 ) whe th er t he erro r se rio us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y ,

orpubl ic rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs . Id
. The p art y see ki ng to est ab li sh pl ai n e rro r ha s t he bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g p reju di ce. Uni te d Sta te s v. Ro dr ig ue z , 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). To es tabl is h p reju di ce, the de fen da ntm us t sh ow t ha t t he erro r affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. “ [I]n m os t ca se s i t m ean s t ha t th e err orm

us t h av e b een pre

jud ic ia l: It m

us t h av e aff

ect edth e o ut co m e o f th e di st ric t co urt p ro ceed in gs .” Uni te d Sta te s v. De L a Ga rz a, 51 6 F .3d12 66 , 12 69 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) ; se e a ls o Pu cket t v. Un it ed St at es , 12 9 S .Ct. 1 42 3, 1 43 2- 34 (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e que st io n o f pr ejud ic e d oe s n otrel at e to whet he r th e d efen da nt wou ldha ve en te redin to th e p le a, bu t ra th er, wh ethe r hi s s en te nc e was affe ct edby th e g ov ern m en t’s b reac h)
. [W] he re t he effe ctof a n e rro r on th e res ul t i n the di st ric t co urt i s un cert ai n o r in de te rm in at e—wh ere we wo ul d h av e to sp ecu la te —t he ap pe ll an t h as no t m ethi s b ur de n o f sh owi ng a reas on ab le pro babi li ty th atth e res ul t wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t b utforth e err or ; h e h as no t m ethi s b ur de n o f sh owi ng pre jud ic e; he ha s n otm ethi s b ur de n o f sh owi ng th athi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s h av e b een affe ct ed
. Rod ri gu ez , 39 8 F .3d at13 01
. A m at eri al pro m is e b y

th e g ov ern m en t, wh ic h i nduc es th e d efen dantto pl eadgu il ty, bi nd s the go ve rn m en t t o t ha t p ro m is e. Sa nt ob el lo v. New Y ork, 40 4 U.S. 25 7, 2 62 (19 71 ). The fai lu re t o a dh ere t o t he pro m is es en ti tl es th e d efen da nt

4to sp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce o f th e co nt ractwit h re se nt en ci ng be fo re a d iff eren t ju dg e orth e ri gh t t o wi th dr aw hi s g ui lt y pl ea. Se e Puc ket t , 12 9 S .Ct. at14 30 . But 2 whe n, as he re, the de fen dantfai le d t o p res erv e th e err or , rel ie f st il l re qu ire s t ha t th e d efen da ntsh ow p reju di ce. Id
. at 1 43 3. Here, t he PSI n ot edth atgo ve rn m en t ag en ts ha d d eb rie fedPad il laan d Pad il laadvi se d the co urt t ha t h e h adbe enco op erat in g wi th th e g ov ern m en t. Bu t th e g ov ern m en t fa il edto in fo rm th e co urt o f Pad il la ’s coo pe rat io n a s i t p ro m is ed to do . Alth ou gh Pad il lapu t t he in fo rm at io n b efo re t he co urt, t hi s d oe s n otsat is fy th e g ov ern m en t’s p ro m is e to advi se th e co urt o f Pad il la ’s coo pe rat io n. Th eref or e, Pad il lacan est ab li sh th e fi rs t t wo p ro ng s o f th e p la in -err oran al y si s. Bu t d es pi te th e g ov ern m en t’s b reac h, Pa di ll a is no t en ti tl edto rel ie f be cau se he ha s n otest ab li sh edth athe was p reju di ced . The d is tri ctco urt co ns id ered Pad il la ’s arg um en ts an d t he sen te nc in g fa ct or s s etou t i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Th e co urt al so ga ve a de ta il edex pl an at io n t o s up po rt t he de ci si on to va ry do wnwar d

The decision to rema

nd or permit the defe ndant to withdraw his plea is within the district 2 court’s discretion. But “the reme dy of withd ra wa l o f t h e guilty plea has not been favor ed in this circ uit.” United States v. Jefferie s , 908 F.2d 1520, 1527 (11th Cir. 1990). Specific perf ormanc e is appropriate when there is no question that the plea was knowing ly and voluntarily enter ed. United States v. Tobon-Hernandez , 845 F.2d 277, 281 (11th Cir. 1988) (“Tobon- Her nandez knowing ly and voluntarily enter ed his guilty plea. To allow him to withdraw that plea and proce ed to trial would be unwar rante d. Rath er , his voluntary plea agree ment should bind him just as it binds the g overnme nt.”). 5fro m

th e ad vi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge . On th is reco rd , we can no t b e certa in th atth e co urt wo ul d h av e im

po se d agre at er v ari an ce fr om th e g ui de li ne ran ge if a le rte d t o th e ex te ntof P ad il la ’s coo pe rat io n. Rod ri gu ez , 39 8 F .3d at13 01 . Thu s, Pa di ll a ha s n otsh own th atth e b reac h a ffec te d the ou tc om e o f hi s s en te nc in g a ndhe is no t en ti tl edto rel ie f. II. Bec au se we co nc lu de th atPad il lais no t en ti tl edto rel ie f, th e p le a ag reem en t is va li d a ndwe wil l h ol d P ad il lato it s t erm s. In th is cas e, th e p le a ag reem en t co nt ai ne d awaiv er-o f-ap pe al pro vi si on th atwil l b ar Pa di ll a’s se nt en ci ng ch al le ng e pr ov id edth atth e wai ve r was en te redin to kn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly. W e rev ie w th e v al id it y

of asen te nc e-ap pe al waiv er p ro vi si onof apl ea ag reem en tde no vo . Uni te d Sta te s v. Bu sh er t , 99 7 F .2d13 43 , 13 52 (11 th Cir
. 19 93 ). A sen te nc e-ap pe al waiv er m us t b e m ad e kno win gl y

an d v ol un ta ril y

an d i s va li d i f th e g ov ern m en t s ho ws ei th er t ha t: (1) th e d is tri ctco urt s pe ci fic al ly qu es ti on edth e d efen da ntab ou t t he waiv er; or ( 2) th e rec or d m ak es cle ar t ha t t he de fen da ntot he rwis e u nd ers to odth e fu ll si gn ifi can ce o f th e wai ve r. Id
. at 1 35 0- 51
. Here, t he di st ric t co urt s pe ci fic al ly que st io ne d P ad il laab ou t the waiv er an d Pad il lain di cat edth athe un de rs to odit . Becau se Pad il la ’s app eal waiv er was en te redin to kn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly, itis en fo rceabl e to ba r hi s s en te nc e 6ap pe al . Accor di ng ly, we di sm is s Pa di ll a’s ch al le ng e to hi s s en te nc e.

AFFIRMED I N PART, DISMI SSED I N PART.

7