[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-15344

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-20324-DMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

MAXO DUCLER, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 26, 2020)

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-15344 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 1 of 13
2

Maxo Ducler appeals his convictions after pleading guilty to several drugtrafficking and firearms offenses. On appeal, Ducler seeks to vacate his plea on two 

grounds: he alleges (1) the district court violated Rule 11, Fed. R. Crim. P., by 

failing to ensure both that Ducler understood the nature of the drug-conspiracy 

charge and that an adequate factual basis supported his plea to that charge; and (2) 

the government breached the plea agreement by permitting a state prosecution to 

continue after Ducler entered his guilty plea in the federal case. After careful review, 

we affirm Ducler’s convictions.

I.

In June 2017, Ducler was charged by a superseding indictment with several 

drug-trafficking and firearms offenses: one count of conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1); three counts 

of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

(Counts 2, 4, and 7); three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Counts 3, 5, and 8); and two counts of possession of a firearm 

in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Counts 6 and 

9). The conspiracy count charged Ducler and a codefendant, Widner Gabriel, with 

conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base (“crack cocaine”), 

cocaine, fentanyl, MDMA, and oxycodone. 

Case: 17-15344 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 2 of 13
3

In July 2017, Ducler agreed to plead guilty to Counts 1 through 6 under a 

written plea agreement. The parties jointly recommended a total sentence of 17 

years in prison (twelve years on Counts 1 through 5, plus a consecutive five-year 

sentence on Count 6). The government agreed to dismiss the remaining counts after 

sentencing. In addition, the parties “agreed that, in contemplation of this

agreement,” a related state criminal case against Ducler “will not be prosecuted by 

the State Attorney’s Office.” 

The parties also executed a factual proffer stipulating to facts that “would have 

been proven beyond a reasonable doubt” at trial. According to the proffer, Ducler 

sold drugs or guns or both to a confidential informant on three occasions in February 

and March of 2017: (1) on February 28, Ducler sold two ounces of crack cocaine 

and one ounce of powder cocaine; (2) on March 8, Ducler sold a loaded gun; and 

(3) on March 22, Ducler sold three ounces of crack cocaine and a gun. The proffer 

stated that Gabriel was present for the third transaction and “helped DUCLER 

unload the firearm before the transaction was completed.” 

A magistrate judge conducted a change-of-plea hearing on July 28, 2017. 

Ducler confirmed that he had received a copy of the superseding indictment, that he 

had an opportunity to discuss the charges and the plea agreement with his attorney, 

that he understood and did not have questions about the terms of the plea agreement, 

and that he was pleading guilty because he was, in fact, guilty as charged. After 

Case: 17-15344 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 3 of 13
4

going over the maximum penalties Ducler faced, the sentencing guidelines, and the 

rights Ducler was giving up by pleading guilty, the magistrate judge addressed the 

nature of the charges. 

As to the nature of Count 1, the magistrate judge advised, “Count 1 charges 

you with conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute controlled substances, 

cocaine base[], which is called crack cocaine, fentanyl, MDMA, and oxycodone, all 

of which are listed on either Schedules 1 and 2 of controlled substances.” Ducler 

stated that he understood the offenses to which he was pleading guilty. Further, 

defense counsel agreed that the factual proffer “sets forth facts which establish the 

guilt of this defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Ducler then pled guilty to Counts 1 through 6, and the magistrate judge found 

that he was “aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of his pleas of 

guilty,” which were “supported by an independent basis in fact, containing all of the 

material elements of the offenses.” After the hearing, the magistrate judge issued a 

report recommending that the district court accept Ducler’s guilty plea as freely and 

voluntarily made. The district court adopted the report and recommendation without 

objection by Ducler. 

Ducler was sentenced in November 2017 to a total of 17 years in prison, as 

the parties had jointly recommended in the plea agreement. At sentencing, the 

government attorney referenced the state prosecution against Ducler and stated that 

Case: 17-15344 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 4 of 13
5

she would “deal with [the state case] after sentencing, if the Plea Agreement is 

upheld.” Ducler raised no issue with respect to the state case at that time. He timely 

appealed from the judgment. 

In August 2019, while this appeal was pending, Ducler filed records from the 

state case. According to these records, Ducler was charged by information in June 

2017. The state submitted a request for temporary custody in March 2018, and 

Ducler was transferred in early June 2018 and made his first appearance on June 6, 

2018. Nine days later, on June 15, 2018, the state dismissed its case against Ducler, 

who was then returned to federal custody. 

II.

Ducler contends that his guilty plea should be vacated because the district 

court violated Rule 11 by failing to ensure that he understood the nature of the 

conspiracy charge and failing to secure a sufficient factual basis for his plea to that 

charge. 

Ducler concedes that, because these arguments were raised for the first time 

on appeal, he must demonstrate plain error.1 See United States v. Rodriguez, 751 

F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2014) (“We review for plain error when a defendant . . . 

1 The government contends that Ducler waived these arguments by failing to raise them in 

objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2) 

(providing that a party has fourteen days to file objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation 

and that the failure to object “waives a party’s right to review”). We need not decide the waiver 

issue because, even assuming the arguments are not waived, Ducler cannot establish plain error. 

Case: 17-15344 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 5 of 13
6

fails to object in the district court to a claimed Rule 11 violation, including a claim 

that there was an insufficient factual basis for a guilty plea.”). Under plain-error 

review, Ducler bears the burden of showing (1) an error (2) that is plain and (3) that 

affects substantial rights. Id. To meet the third prong, the defendant “must show a 

reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” 

United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). We may “consult the 

whole record when considering the effect of any error on substantial rights.” United 

States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). 

“Rule 11 imposes upon a district court the obligation and responsibility to 

conduct an inquiry into whether the defendant makes a knowing and voluntary guilty 

plea.” United States v. Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F.3d 945, 949 (11th Cir. 2000). 

Among other things, Rule 11 mandates that courts inform the defendant of, and 

determine that he understand, “the nature of each charge to which the defendant is 

pleading.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(G). The district court must also “determine 

there is a factual basis for the plea.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). “A ‘factual basis for 

the plea’ simply means that there must be evidence from which a court could 

reasonably find that the defendant was guilty, and uncontroverted evidence of guilt 

is not required.” Rodriguez, 751 F.3d at 1255 (quotation marks omitted). 

A.

Case: 17-15344 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 6 of 13
7

There is no specific way that a district court is required to inform the defendant 

of the nature of the charges. United States v. Puentes-Hurtado, 794 F.3d 1278, 1286 

(11th Cir. 2015). The adequacy of the colloquy depends on various factors, 

including the complexity of the charges and the defendant’s intelligence and 

sophistication. Id. “For simple charges that are generally familiar to a layman, a 

reading of the indictment, followed by an opportunity given the defendant to ask 

questions about it, will usually suffice.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). 

Here, the district court did not plainly err. This case is materially similar to 

Puentes-Hurtado, in which we held that a district court did not plainly err where the 

“court asked Mr. Puentes-Hurtado if he understood that Count 1 charged him ‘with 

a conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine,’

and Mr. Puentes–Hurtado responded ‘[c]orrect.” Id. Although the court did not go 

further and “explain the elements of the narcotics conspiracy charge,” we concluded 

that the failure to do so did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights. Id. We 

explained that, “[u]nder our precedent, that charge was a ‘simple’ one, and the 

district court did not commit plain error when it failed to provide more explanation.” 

Id. And we noted that the court did more than simply “ask[] the defendant if he had 

read the indictment and understood what he had been charged with.” Id.

The same reasoning applies in this case. The magistrate judge did more than 

simply ask Ducler if he had read the indictment and understood what he had been 

Case: 17-15344 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 7 of 13
8

charged with. Rather, similar to the court in Puentes-Hurtado, the magistrate judge 

specifically advised Ducler that Count 1 charged him with “conspiring to possess 

with the intent to distribute controlled substances, cocaine base[], which is called 

crack cocaine, fentanyl, MDMA, and oxycodone,” and Ducler stated that he 

understood the charge and had an opportunity to discuss the charges with his 

attorney. While the magistrate judge did not go over the elements of that charge, the 

drug-conspiracy charge here, like the drug-conspiracy charge in Puentes-Hurtado, 

was a “simple” one under our precedent. See id. Accordingly, “the district court did 

not commit plain error when it failed to provide more explanation.” Id.

B.

Next, the factual basis. Ordinarily, “[t]he standard for evaluating challenges 

to the factual basis for a guilty plea is whether the trial court was presented with 

evidence from which it could reasonably find that the defendant was guilty.” United 

States v. Lopez, 907 F.2d 1096, 1100 (11th Cir. 1990). The purpose of the factualbasis requirement is “to protect a defendant who mistakenly believes that his conduct 

constitutes the criminal offense to which he is pleading.” Id. 

To support a conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a 

controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 846, “the government must prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that: (1) a conspiracy existed; (2) [the defendant] knew of the 

essential objectives of the conspiracy; and (3) [he] knowingly and voluntarily 

Case: 17-15344 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 8 of 13
9

participated in the conspiracy.” United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1326 

(11th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks omitted). 

Ducler has not established any error regarding the factual basis affected his 

substantial rights. At the change-of-plea hearing, defense counsel agreed that the 

facts set forth in the factual proffer establish Ducler’s guilt on the conspiracy charge, 

along with the other offenses, beyond a reasonable doubt. In the factual proffer, 

Ducler stipulated that his codefendant, Gabriel, was present for a transaction during 

which Ducler sold three ounces of crack cocaine and a gun and that Gabriel “helped 

[him] unload the firearm before the transaction was completed.” 

Ducler now contends that Gabriel’s “mere presence” during this transaction 

is not enough to prove a conspiracy. See, e.g., United States v. Pintado, 715 F.2d 

1501, 1504 (11th Cir. 1983) (mere presence at the scene of a crime is not enough to 

sustain a conspiracy conviction). But even assuming that’s correct, the district court 

was presented with other evidence in the record “from which it could reasonably 

find that the defendant was guilty.” Lopez, 907 F.2d at 1100. Specifically, a 

government agent testified at sentencing that a search of the residence where Ducler 

sold the drugs to the CI revealed both drugs and drug paraphernalia, including a 

“large amount of cocaine” and some oxycodone pills and some fentanyl. In addition, 

according to the agent, Gabriel was present for the search and later admitted that the 

residence was a “stash house” for himself and Ducler and their drug-trafficking 

Case: 17-15344 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 9 of 13
10

operation, which involved “importing kilogram[] amounts of cocaine and shipping 

out firearms.” The agent advised that Gabriel was prepared to testify against Ducler 

in this case. 

Ducler points out that this “this testimony was elicited several months after 

[he] changed his plea to guilty.” But this evidence was known to the district court 

before it entered judgment on the guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3) (“Before 

entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual 

basis for the plea.” (emphasis added)). And we may “consult the whole record when 

considering the effect of any error on substantial rights.” Vonn, 535 U.S. at 59. 

Moreover, while Ducler did not stipulate to these additional facts, “[t]here is no 

requirement that there be uncontroverted evidence of guilt.” United States v. Owen, 

858 F.2d 1514, 1516–17 (11th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, Ducler has made no 

showing that any error regarding the factual basis affected his substantial rights. See 

Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83. 

III.

Ducler next contends that the government breached the terms of the plea 

agreement, since, for eleven months after Ducler entered his guilty plea, the State 

Attorney’s Office continued prosecuting him on a related state criminal case. We

Case: 17-15344 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 10 of 13
11

review de novo whether the government has breached a plea agreement.2 United 

States v. Hunter, 835 F.3d 1320, 1324 (11th Cir. 2016). 

The government is bound by any material promises made to induce the 

defendant to plead guilty. United States v. Thomas, 487 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 

2007). “Whether the government violated the agreement is judged according to the 

defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement when he entered the plea.” 

Id. 

The Supreme Court has held that “some breaches may be curable . . . for 

example, where the prosecution simply forgot its commitment and is willing to 

adhere to the agreement.” Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 140 (2009)

(emphasis in original). We have allowed the government to cure a breach of a plea 

agreement and reasoned that the government’s cure of a breach will obviate the need 

for further action from the district court to salvage the plea agreement. See 

Raulerson v. United States, 901 F.2d 1009, 1013 (11th Cir. 1990); In re Arnett, 804 

F.2d 1200, 1204 (11th Cir. 1986) (permitting the government an opportunity to cure 

where the defendant suffered no prejudice).

2 The government points out that if Ducler’s argument is that the government was in breach 

from the moment he entered his guilty plea, then Ducler had an opportunity to raise that issue 

before sentencing, in which case our review would be for plain error. See United States v. Davila, 

749 F.3d 982, 993 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that plain-error review applies where the defendant 

had “ample occasion” to raise the issue before the district court). In any case, we conclude that 

Ducler is not entitled to relief even under de novo review.

Case: 17-15344 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 11 of 13
12

Here, we need not resolve whether the government breached its promise under 

the plea agreement because even if any breach occurred, it was harmless and 

promptly cured.3

 In the plea agreement, the parties “agreed that, in contemplation 

of this agreement,” a related state criminal case against Ducler “will not be 

prosecuted by the State Attorney’s Office.” That state case was pending when 

Ducler pled guilty in July 2017. No action was taken in that case—i.e., the state did 

not attempt to prosecute the case against him—until March 2018, when the state 

requested temporary custody. Ducler was then transferred to state custody in early 

June 2018, and the charges were dismissed less than two weeks later. The record 

fails to show, and Ducler does not explain, how he was materially harmed by his 

brief transfer to state custody while serving his 17-year federal sentence. And once 

the state dismissed the charges, he received the benefit of his bargain with the 

government, curing any putative breach of the plea agreement. See Raulerson, 901 

F.2d at 1013; In re Arnett, 804 F.2d at 1204. Accordingly, we conclude that Ducler

is not entitled to the remedy of withdrawal from the plea agreement. 

IV.

3 It’s unclear whether the promise is enforceable, given that the federal government and the 

states are separate sovereigns, and the state does not appear to have been a party to the plea 

agreement. See United States v. Ballard, 6 F.3d 1502, 1508 (11th Cir. 1993). The government 

does not argue that point, however, so we assume that the promise is enforceable. 

Case: 17-15344 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 12 of 13
13

For the reasons stated, we reject Ducler’s attempts to vacate his guilty plea, 

and we affirm his convictions. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-15344 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 13 of 13