### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 21, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1580 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 06 3- CR-P -NE UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us DELJUAN PRETTYMAN, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f or the N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (J ul y 21 , 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BA RKE T T a nd W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D el j uan P re tty

m anappe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s f or c onsp ir ac y

to dis tr ibu te and to p oss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te c ra ck c oc ai ne , in vio la tio n of

21 U . S. C. § 84 62

(C ount 1) , a nd d istri but iona nd p oss es sio n w ithint en t t o di str ibu te c ra ck c oc ai ne in v iol at ionof

21 U . S. C. §§ 841( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 )( A )( iii ), a nd ( b) (1 )( C) ( Co unt s 3, 4, an d 5) . O n a

ppe al , P re tty

m ana rg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to c om

ply w ith Fe d. R. Cr im . P . 11 ( b) (1 )( H ) an d ( b) (1 )( I) by not pr ope rl y inf orm ing him

of the m an da tor y m ini m um pe na lty or pos sib le m ax im

um pe na lty f or e ac h c ount

of the ind ic tm en t. P re tty

m anspe ci fi ca lly

c ont en ds tha t, dur ing the ple a co llo quy , the court did no t fully

address the im

pact that the 21 U. S. C. § 851 enhancem ent filed by the go ve rn m en t wo ul d h av e o n h is m in im um an d m ax im

um pe na lt ie s. Pr etty m ana sse rt s th at

the c ourt di d no t kn owto w hic h c ount s th e § 85 1 enhancem ent applied and di d not in form him of the m axim

um and m andatory m inim um penalties that he was f

acing under each count. More over, P rettym an co nte nds, the dis tr ic t c ourt i nc or re ct ly inf orm ed him r eg ar din g th e m ax im

um poss ibl e pe na lty

that he w as f

ac ing sho uld

the § 85 1 e nhanc em en t a ppl y to Co unt s 4 and 5 of

the ind ic tm en t. T hus, be ca use the c ourt f

ai le d to a dvi se him

of the dir ec t c onse que nc es of

his ple a, P re tty

m ana rg ue s, his ple a w as not m ad e kn o w i n g l y an di n t e l l i g e n t l y. W e re view “ the issue of a Fed. R. Crim . P . 11 violation for plain err or when it was not raised befor e the district court.” United States v. J ames , 210 F . 3d 1 342, 1343 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . “ U nde r pla in- er ro r re vie w , the de fe ndant h as the bur de n to3

sh ow t ha t t he re i s (1 ) erro r (2 ) th atis pl ai n a nd (3) th ataffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. If a ll thr ee c ondi tio ns are m et , a n a ppe llate c ourt m ay

the n e xe rc ise it s di sc re tio n to n oti ce af

or fe ite d e rr or , but

onl y if ( 4) the e rr or

se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the f ai rn es s, integrity , or publ ic reputation of judicial procee ding s.” U nit ed Sta tes v . M

onro e , 35 3 F .3d13 46 , 13 49 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (i nt ern al cit at io ns an d q uo ta ti on s o m it te d) . T he “ re vie w ing c ourt m ay c onsu lt the w hol e re co rd w he n c onsi de ri ng the e ff ec t of any err or on sub stantial rights .” U nit ed Sta tes v . V

onn , 535 U . S. 55, 59, 122 S . Ct . 1043 , 1046 (2002). Ru le 11 r equir es that, be fo re the c ourt a cc ep ts a ple a of gui lty , it m ust ad dr es s th e de fe ndant p er sona lly in ope n c ourt and d et er

m ine that the de fe ndant unde rs tands an y

m ax im um pos sib le pe na lty , inc lud ing im pr iso nm en t, f

ine a nd term of supervised release, as w ell as any m andatory

m inim um penalty . Fed. R. Cr im . P . 11( b) (1 )( H ), ( I) ( 2005 ). Ac ourt a cc ep tin g agui lty ple a m ust c om ply w ith Ru le 11, a nd, in part ic ular, a ddr es s th re e “ co re c onc er ns” by e nsur ing that: (1 ) the gui lty ple a is v oluntary ; ( 2) the de fe ndant unde rs tands the na tur e of the c harg es ; an d (3 ) th e d efen da nt un de rs ta nd s t he co ns eq ue nc es of h is gu il ty ple a. United States v. Siegel , 102 F . 3d 4 77, 481 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . H ow ev er , w e ha ve “ uphe ld ple a co llo qui es that f

ai l t o a ddr es s an it em

e xpr es sly

r equir ed by Ru le 11 s o lo ng4

as the overall plea colloquy adequately

addresses these three c ore concer ns.” M onro e , 353 F . 3d at 13 54. W e fi nd tha t P re tty

m anha s f ai le d to c ar

ry his bur de n of

sho w ing that the dis tr ic t c ourt pl ai nly

e rr ed . T he dis tr ic t c ourt i nf orm ed P re tty m an( 1) a s to the m ax im um a nd m ini m

um pe na lti es pe rt ai nin g to e ac h c ount of the ind ic tm en t, ( 2) that the gov er

nm en t f ile d a§ 85 1 e nhanc em en t, a nd ( 3) that, if the e nhanc em en t ap pli ed , the n th e m ax im

um se nte nc e w oul d in cr ea se to 20 y ears to lif e. T hus, overall, the district court’ s plea colloqu y com plied with Rule 11 and addressed the c or e co nc er

ns a s st at ed

in Monroe. See 35 3 F .3dat 1 35 4. Beca use Pretty m an has failed to car

ry his burden, the district court co m m itt ed no r ev er sib le e rr or . A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng. AFFIRMED.