The Honor able William O. Be rtelsman, United States District J udg e for the E astern D istrict * of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

File Na me: 10a0752n.06 No. 08-2537 UN I TE D ST AT ES C OU RT O F APP EA L S F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT

UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA : : Plaintiff-Appellee , : : ON APPEALFROM THE v. : UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT : FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MARCI A OTTOMA

N : MI CHI GAN

: De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. :

BEFORE: SUTTON and GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges; BERTELS MAN, D istrictJudge. * OP IN ION BERTE LSMAN, Distric t Judge: Def e n d an t- A p p e ll an t, M ar c ia O tt o ma n , a p p e a ls h e r c o n v ic ti o n f o r o n e c o u n t of imp e rs on a tin g an o ff

ic e r o f t he Un ite d St a te s and on e c ount of wi re fr a ud

. Ottom an e nte re d a

g uil ty plea, without the bene fi t o f any Rule 11 ag ree ment, on April 29, 2008. On Nove mber 20, 2008, O t t o m anw a s s e n t e n c e d

t o t w e n t y- t w o m o n t h s i n p r i s o n o ne a c h c o u n t , t o b e s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y. Ottoman contends that the district c ourt err ed in acc epting her guilty plea be cause it was taken without her full conse nt and that a fac tual basis for the ple a wa s lacking . Ottoman also argues that the plea co ll oq uy was fl awe d in that sh e wa s e rr on e ou sly a dv ise d b y

the c ourt of the a pp lic a ble sentenc e g uideline ra

ng e, in violation of Fe d. R. Crim. P . 11(b)( 1)(M).No. 08-2537

United States v. Ottoman

2 For the re asons stated be low, we AF F IRM

. I. On May 9, 2007, Marc ia Ottoman was indicted on one count of impersonating an off

icer of the Unit ed S tates under 18 U.S.C. § 912 and one count of w ire fr aud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. (R.7).

The indictment stems from Ottoman’s involveme nt in a scheme t o forc e the unlaw ful

e vic tio n o f s ome te na

nts fr om he r e lde rl y

in- laws ’ f arm and su bs e qu e ntl y

take c on tr ol o f h e r i n- laws ’

re a l pr op e rt

y . Pa rt of the sc he me inv olv e d ema il co mmunic a tio ns thr ou g h a Ya ho o! e ma il a c c ount. Us i n g t h i s em ai l ac co un t , Ot t o m an en l i s t edt h e a i d o f a l o c a l a t t o r n e y i ncr af t i n g an d d el i v er i n g a fra udulent letter to her

in-laws in orde r to frig hten them into unlawfully evicting their tena

nts. The fraudulent letter that was ult imately delivere d to Ottoman’s i n-laws had a De partment of Jus tice letter

head a nd a sig nature block with the name a n d t i t l e o f an a ctual Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Mi chig an. The AUSA whose name was use d on this letter did not know Ottoman nor was he involved in cre ating or sig ning the letter. After rec eiving the letter, O ttoman’s in-laws bec ame suspicious and co ntacted loc al law enfor ceme nt. I n due cour se, the F BI beca me involved in the investig ation, and Ottoman wa s subsequently

arr ested a

nd prosec uted. On April 29, 2008, Ottoman appe are d in district court in order to enter a plea

of g uilty to the two criminal counts ag ainst her. ( R.46 at 2:18-22). Initially , Ottoman attempted to enter a no lo contende re plea but the c ourt reje cted the r ationale put for th by Ottoman for a no lo plea. ( Id. at 8- 10). While the re was some discussion of a possible Rule 11 a g ree ment betwee n the United StatesNo. 08-2537

United States v. Ottoman

3 and Ottom an, the a g re e me nt w a s u lti ma te ly re je c te d by Ottom an. Ottom an pr oc e e de d to ple a d g uil ty without the benef

it of any plea a g ree ment. (

Id. at 10:4-11). During the plea colloquy , the court inquired into Ottoman’ s mental state. Whil e O t t o man admitted to a fa irly

rec ent diag nosis of a per sonality disorder, he r attorne y

indicated that there we re no limit ations on her a

bility to understand or

appre ciat e t h e p ro ceeding s in which she wa s participating. (

Id. at 15:15-21). Ottoman was placed under oath and gave testimony during the plea c olloquy . Ottoman was also cross- examined by

the prosec ution during the plea co l l o q u y . After this inqui ry , the cour

t

acc epted Ottoman’ s plea of guilty to one count of impersonating a federa l office r and one count of wire f raud. On Novembe r 20, 2008, Ottoman appe are d befor e the district court for sentencing

. During the sentenc ing, O ttoman raised se vera l objectio n s t o t h e pre- sentenc e re port. (R.53 at 27-28)

. Ottoman objected to the PSR’s contention that, subsequent to her guilty plea, she obstructed justice and did not acc ept re sponsibili ty for he r cr iminal conduct. The prose cution propounded e vidence that, at some time afte r her g uilty plea, Ottoman

c omm itt e d p e rj ur

y duri nga state -c ourt

c ivi l pr oc e e din g . Sp e c if

ic a lly , th e Un ite d State s sh ow e d th a t, while under

oath, Ottoman denied be ing a convicted f

elon and denied ever having pled guilty to the offe nses of wire fra

ud and imperso n at i n g a publi c off icial. ( Id. at 29). The district court re jected Ottoman’s explanation for her post-plea conduct and enhanc ed her sentenc e beca use of the pe rjury by adding two points to the base offe nse level for a total of fense level of twelve. As a re sult, the new sentenc ing guideline ra

ng e wa s ten to six teen months.No. 08-2537

United States v. Ottoman

4 The district cour

t then went on to announc e an upw ard d ep arture from the se ntencing g uid e lin e ra

ng e ba se d on § 4A 1. 3( a )( 1) of the U. S. S EN TENC I NG G U I D ELI N ES M ANUAL . ( Id. at 58). The g overnme nt a

rg ued, and the court ag ree d, that the previously calc ulated crim i n al history cate g ory underr epre sented the likelihood that Ottoman would commit other crimes. ( Id. at 56-58). The c ourt ultimately

imposed a sentenc e of twe nty -two months imprisonment for each count, to run

concur rently . ( Id. at 58). On Novembe r 24, 2008, Ottoman filed a timely notice of a

ppeal. ( R.41). II. This court re views the district cour t’s acc eptanc e of a g uilty

plea f or plain er

ror unde r F ed. R. C ri m. P . 5 2( b) . T he pla in error st andar d o f r e vie w a pp lie s in c a se s w he re a

de fe nd ant f

a ils to object to any

defic iency

during the plea colloquy but the n later appea ls the conviction on the g rounds that the plea c olloquy

was e rrone ous. United States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002); United States v. Page , 520 F.3d 545, 546 ( 6th Cir. 2008). To establish plain err or, a de fenda nt must show, “(1) that there was an er ror, ( 2) that is clea

r and obvious, and (3) that aff ects substantial leg al rig hts. I f the a ppellant makes that s h o wi ng , the

c ourt ha s d isc re tio n to c on sid e r t he e rr or if it ‘ se ri ou sly

a ff e c ts the fa ir

ne ss, int e g ri ty , o r p ub lic

r e p u tati o n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d ings.’ ” United States v. Ange l , 355 F.3d 462, 469 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). A. Ottom an a

rgue s th a t he r p le a

la c ke d th e re qu isi te c on se nt a nd factua l ba sis un de r F e d. R. Crim. P. 11. A review of the proce eding s proves other wise.No. 08-2537

United States v. Ottoman

5 Ottoman initially tried to enter a nolo plea. (R.46 at 2). W hen her nolo plea wa s rejec ted by the cour t, Ottoman persisted in her de sire to enter a g uilty plea. The Court: . . . So for all of those rea sons the C ourt declines to acc ept a plea as

a nolo plea. Def ense Counsel: J udg e, at this time, Miss Ottoman is prepa red to still tender a plea of g u i l t y.

. . . . D e f e n s e C o u n s e l : J u d g e , m ay I j u s tv o i r d i r e b r i e f l y? Miss Ottom an, do y ou understand that beca use the Judge ha s declined our

reque st for y o u t o p lead no c ontest, that y ou would have to state fac ts suf ficient for the Court to find that y ou are g uilty

of the offe nses that y ou' re c harg ed within the I ndictment? Otherw ise, she could not acc ept y our g uilty plea if y ou do no t a dmi t y our g uil t and wa ive y our r ig ht t o r e ma in sil e nt. Do y ou

un de rs tand

that? Ms. Ottom an: No w I un de rs tand

it. T h e C o u rt : A n d yo uar e p r e p ar e d

t o d o t h a tt o d ay? Ms. Ottoman: Ithink so. The Court: You said y ou think so? Ms. Ottoman: Ithink so. ( Id. at 10, 16-17). Whil e Ottoman ar g ues that her response of “I

think so” was equivoc al, at no time during the plea c olloquy

did she voice a

n objection to her ple a, nor did she state any desire to chang e her plea to something other

than g uilty

(the e arlier nolo attempt notwithstanding). I mportantly , at the conc lusion of the proce eding s, the court a s k ed Ot t o man if she ha d any questions about what had been done. Ottoman’s response w as “no.” ( Id. at 43:14-16). Fur

thermore ,No. 08-2537

United States v. Ottoman

6 at sentenc ing, O ttoman ag ain did not raise a ny objection t o any

of the c ircumstance s surrounding her

ear lier g uilty

plea. ( R.53). Ottoman’s argument that her ple a wa s acc epted without her full consent is not well taken. Withre sp e c t to the fa c tua l ba sis fo r h e r p le a , a g a in t he re c or d revea ls a

mpl e te sti mony

to ref ute Ottoman’s ar g ument. On Count One, Ottoman initially minimi z ed her involveme nt and attempted to shift the blame to her attorney

for c reating a

nd deliveringa letter

to her e lderly

in-laws that appe are d to be fr om t he De pa rtme nt of Justi c e and sig ne d by a loc a l As sis tant Un ite d State s Attor ne y . As a re su lt, the cour t naturally expressed som e hesitation over acc epting Ottoman’s plea of g uilty to Count One. ( Id. at 28-29). Howeve r, upon further questioning, Ottoman did state a sound fac tual basis for he r plea of g uilty to the crime of

impersonating a fe dera l office r. Uni ted S tat es: Di d y ou even tu all y sp eak to S peci al Agent J im Br e nn an of th e FBI

about this case? Ms. Ottom an: Ye s.

. . . . United States: Miss Ottoman, that letter that' s befor e y ou, Gover nment' s Ex hibit A, in D e c e mbe r o f 2 00 6 whe n y ou me t w ithAg e nt B re nn an, did y ou te ll him that y ou wrote that letter? Ms. Ottom an: He a sk e d me if Iwr ote a le tte r a nd Isa id y e s. B ut h e did

n' t
-- we did not expound further or a sk any additional questions. He was y elling at me for a g ood --. Un ite d St a te s: Re g ard ing-- thi s is the le tte r w e ' re ta lki nga bo ut.No. 08-2537

United States v. Ottoman

7 Ms. Ottoman: Ibelieve so. United States: Did y ou tell Ag ent B renna n that y ou wrote that letter? Ms. Ottoman: Yea h, but -- United States: Thank y ou, Your Honor

. ( Id. at 36:15-17, 38:11-24). Wit h respe ct to Count Two, t he record ag ain y ields a sufficient fac tual basis for Ottoman’ s g uilty plea. The Court: So y ou g ener ated emails using [t he Assistant U.S. Attorney ’s] name. Ms. Ottoman: Yes, a nd Iwould send them to J ohn For zak a nd he would likewise do t h e same and send e mails using that same acc ount and send them back to me.

. . . . Un ite d St a te s: Di d y ou te ll M r. B re nn an, Ag e nt B re nn an y ou ha d wr itt e n th e e ma ils ? Ms. Ottoman: Ireme mber spec ifically talking a bout all of the ema ils, but I admitted to t he on e s th a t I

kn e w a bo ut. Un ite d St a te s: What y ou a dmi tte d is that y ou

a dmi tte d th a t y ou

ha d s e nt t

he m? M s . O t t o m an : Y e p , an d I b e l i e v e I t o l d

t h a tt o t h e J u d g e t o d ay. ( Id. at 30:8-12, 37:4-12). Th e se ri e s o f e ma ils re fe rr e d to wa s se nt v ia a Ya ho o! e ma il a c c ount th at was purp or te dly

cre ated by Ottoman’s attorne y . ( Id. at 29: 15-25, 36: 3-14). The gist of t hese emails was “ to demand that [Ott oman’s] in-laws evict pe ople from f arm prope rty .” (

Id. at 31:15-16). Ottoman admitted to a ssisti ng in “ revising the draf t and addingto its l eng th.” (I d. at 33:21- 24). The dr aft be came a letter that “wa s signe d by

[t he Assistant U.S. Attorney ],” andNo. 08-2537

United States v. Ottoman

8 defe ndant/appellant was “re sponsible f or putting parts in it and taking parts out of it.” ( Id. at 34:7-9). Ottoman knew that he r attorne y was going to “deliver [t he letter ] hi mself.” (

Id. at 34:10-19). She knew the r esulting le tter woul d b e d el i v ered to her in-la ws “at some point [ in] time.” ( Id. a t 3 5 : 7

- 1 2 )

. S h e a d m i t t e d a g a i n t h a t i t w a s “ h e r p l ant o g e tt h e t e n an te v i c t e d f r o m t h e p r o p e rt y” so she and he r husband c ould eventually move in. (

Id. at 35:13-22). At the end of the plea colloquy , counsel was asked if he was satisfied that Ottoman “h as made out the e lements of a violation of I mpersonatingan Of fice r of the U nited States and Wire Fr aud” a nd counsel stated that he was satisfied. ( Id. at 42:16-25). Thus, the to ta li ty

o f th e p le a h e ar in g c le ar ly

in d ic a te s th a t t

h e d is tr ic t c o u rt m e t t

he require ments of Rule 11(b)( 1)(G) and Rule 11 (b) (3) f or each of the two counts to which Ottoman pled g uilty

. “[T] he district c ourt may deter mine the exis tence of the

. . . fac tual basis from a numbe r of source s, including

. . . a stateme nt from the def endant.” United St ates v. Tunning , 69 F.3d 107, 11 2 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 5) (c itatio n o mit te d) ; Un ite d S tat es v . G old

be rg , 862 F.2d 101, 105 ( 6th Cir. 1988). Ottom an’ s argume nt t

hat he r p le a

la c ke d a su ff ic ie nt f a c tua l ba sis is w ith ou t me ri t. B. Ottoman also complains that she wa s incorre ctly advised by

the cour t during the plea

co l l o qu y as t o wh at t h e l i k el y s e n t en ce ra n ge w o u l d b e f o r t h e c ri m es t o wh i ch s h e w as p l ea d i n g. Once ag ain, a r eview of

the re co rd d i spels any

notion that Ottoman was improperly advised or otherwise misled a

bout what her

sentenc e would be. During the plea c olloquy , Ottoman was c lear ly informed of the maxi mum possibl e sente nce f o r t h e c r i m e s t o w h i c h s h e w a s a b o u tt o p l e a d

g u i l t y.No. 08-2537

United States v. Ottoman

9 U n it e d St a te s : Th e r e is n o ma n d a to r y mi n im u m p e n a lt

y . Under

Count One the maxi mum is t hree y ear s imprisonment and $250,000 -- and/or. Count Two, t he maximum pos sible penalty is twenty ye ars in prison and/ or $250,000. The Court: Thank y ou. Mrs. Ot t o m an , d o y o u u n d er s t an d t h o s e s t at u tory

pe na lti e s? Ms. Ottoman: Y

es. (R.46 at 21:8-15) ( emphasis adde d). Ottoman was a lso inst ru cted that she was plea ding guilty without the benef

it of a Rule 11

a g re e me nt o r a

ny pr omi se s ma de the re in. Th e c ourt a lso c le arl y c omm un ic a te d to O tto man th a t a sentenc e that excee ded the c alculate d rang e wa s possible. Def ense Counsel: Do y ou have a question? Ms. Ottoman: Well, I don’t want to jam my sel f i n t o s o mething. I was just to the u n d e r s t an d i n g t h a tp r o b a t i o nw a s a p o s s i b i l i t y. Th e Court : It

is a po ssi bil ity

, b ut t ha t do esn 't m e an y ou 're go ing to ge t it

. J u d ge C o o k wi l l -- y o uwi l l b e re fe rr ed t o t h e P ro b at i o n De p ar t m en tan d i t 's g oin g to m a ke -- pr e pa

re a ve ry e xten siv e re po rt

tha t w ill have qu ite a bit of information abou t y ou, about the cr imes that y ou involved y ourself in a

nd he' s g oing to use that t o fa s h ion a sentenc e. He c e rt a inl y ha s to take int o a c c ount the Gu ide lin e s, wh ic h a re zer o to six months and he ca

n take into acc ount other thi ng s as well. Mr. Niskar said he' s g oing to r aise the I ME, the Indepen d en t M edica l E x am i n at i o nan d

i t s co n t en t s . S o t h er e ar e lo t s o f t h i n gs t h at J u d ge Co o k c anlo o k a t i nd e c id in g w h a t s e n te n c e to g iv e y o u . He c an se nte nc e y ou with in t

ha t ra ng e of zero to six

mo nth s, whi c h c ou ld mean time in prison. He c ould give you probation. He could sentenc e you to m o r e t h a n zero to six months, but no promise can be or represe ntation can be made to y ou right now about the sentenc e you will ge t.No. 08-2537

United States v. Ottoman

10 Ms. Ottoman: I think the only answe r t h at I have to that is when the Rule 11 was

offe red to us, it was to m y understandingthat it would gua rante e pr ob a tio n a

nd no inc arc e ra

tio n, if Iph ra se d th a t r ig ht. De fe ns e Couns e l: No

. Th e U. S. Attor ne y ' s Of fi c e ha s a g re e d no t to op po se pr ob a tio n if J udg e Cook -- if that 's what he de cides to do, but there has bee n no pr om ise s m ad e to y ou tha t y ou will

re c e iv e pr ob ati on or

tha t y ou will rece ive any

type of lenient se ntence

, is that t rue? Ms. Ottoman: I believ e so. Un ite d St a te s: Y

our Honor, the Gove rnment, U.S. A t t o r n ey's Office has not made tha t re pr ese nta tio n. The re is n o R ule11 Ag re e me nt. Th e Court : B ut in the Rul e 11 Ag re e me nt that wa s on the ta ble, di d i t ad dress probation? United States: Yes, zero to six

. Probation was a pos sibili ty. Th e Court : And it still is, but y ou are not ple ading under that Rule 11, so Judge

Coo k is r e all yno t bo un d to ac c e

pt t ha t. ( Id. at 23-24) ( emphasis adde d). Ottom an c on te nd s th a t w hil e no “ pr om ises ” we re ma de , h e r u lti ma te tw e nty -t

wo mon th sentenc e excee ded her

expectations based on a zero to six -m o n t h s entencing guideline ra ng e. Ottom an c o n v e n ie n tl y o v e r lo o k s th e f a c t, h o w e v e r , th a t s h e c o mm itte d p e r ju r y a f te r th e p le a but b ef o re t h e s en t en ci n g. The sente ncing j udg e enha nced he r sentenc e, in par t, by rea son of this misconduct which obviously could not have be en discussed during the plea c olloquy . The c ourt notes that Ottoman does not seek review of t he addition of two points to the base off ense le vel as re sult of her post-plea misconduct, nor of the upwar d depar ture of the g uideline ra

ng e base d on § 4A1.3(a )(1)

.No. 08-2537

United States v. Ottoman

11 Ottoman was spec ifically advised by

the cour t, “ no promise ca

n be or r epre sentation ca

n be made to y ou rig ht now about the sente nce you will ge t.”’ III . Th e re fo re , w e ho ld t

hat no t on ly

wa s th e re no pla in e rr or , th e re wa s no er ro r of any kin d in Ottom an’ s p le a

pr oc e e din g s. AFF I RMED.