[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14855

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20672-JAL-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

DIEGO JAVIER CASTRO VARGAS, 

a.k.a. Diego Castro, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 17, 2014)

Before WILSON, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-14855 Date Filed: 04/17/2014 Page: 1 of 7 
2

Diego Castro Vargas appeals his convictions for conspiracy to structure 

financial transactions to evade financial reporting requirements, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 371 (Count 1), and for structuring financial transactions to evade financial 

reporting requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) (Count 4). On 

appeal, Castro Vargas challenges his convictions on three grounds. First, he argues 

that his indictment was defective, as it did not allege the necessary facts and 

elements required to support the charges against him. Second, he contends that the 

district court erred in accepting his guilty plea, as it was not supported by a 

sufficient factual basis. Third, he argues that his indictment was impermissibly 

multiplicitous, and that, as the court sentenced him to consecutive sentences, he 

was effectively punished twice for the same offense, in excess of the applicable 

statutory maximum. Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ 

briefs, we affirm.

I.

A defendant’s unconditional guilty plea acts as a waiver of all 

non-jurisdictional challenges to his conviction. United States v. Betancourth, 554 

F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 2009). Challenges to the subject matter jurisdiction of 

the federal courts, however, cannot be waived. Id. Federal district courts have 

jurisdiction over offenses against the laws of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 3231. 

Accordingly, we have held that a defendant’s argument that the indictment against 

Case: 12-14855 Date Filed: 04/17/2014 Page: 2 of 7 
3

him failed to charge an offense that implicates the district court’s jurisdiction 

cannot be waived. See United States v. Thompson, 702 F.3d 604, 606 (11th Cir. 

2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2826 (2013) (discussing the effect of an 

unconditional guilty plea).

Not all defects in an indictment are jurisdictional, however, and should not 

be treated categorically. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631, 122 S. Ct. 

1781, 1785 (2002); United States v. McIntosh, 704 F.3d 894, 902 (11th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 134 S. Ct. 470 (2013). Indictments that affirmatively allege conduct that 

does not represent a federal offense contain jurisdictional defects “because 

Congress’s grant of jurisdiction to the district courts in criminal cases extends only 

to offenses against the laws of the United States.” McIntosh, 704 F.3d at 902 

(internal quotation marks omitted); see 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Omissions in an 

indictment, however, such as failing to allege an element of an offense, are not 

jurisdictional errors. See Cotton, 535 U.S. at 630–31, 122 S. Ct. at 1785; see also 

McIntosh, 704 F.3d at 903 (“An indictment’s relationship to jurisdiction is thus 

based on whether it alleges conduct constituting a federal offense, not on some 

intrinsic value of an indictment as such.”).

Castro Vargas waived his challenge to his indictment by virtue of his guilty 

plea. On appeal, he argues that the indictment was insufficient insofar as Counts 1 

and 4 failed to allege the necessary facts and elements required for the charged 

Case: 12-14855 Date Filed: 04/17/2014 Page: 3 of 7 
4

offenses. As the alleged indictment defect is one of omission—i.e., that the 

indictment failed to allege the necessary facts and elements of the charged 

offenses—Castro Vargas has not alleged a jurisdictional error. See Cotton, 535 

U.S. at 630–31, 122 S. Ct. at 1785. Accordingly, he has waived his opportunity to 

challenge his indictment on this ground by virtue of his guilty plea. See 

Betancourth, 554 F.3d at 1332.1

II.

As noted, a defendant, by pleading guilty, waives the ability to appeal 

non-jurisdictional defects in his proceedings. Betancourth, 554 F.3d at 1332. 

Further, we have held that a defendant’s factual-basis challenge presents a 

non-jurisdictional defect and, as such, is waived by a guilty plea. See United States 

v. Johnson, 89 F.3d 778, 784 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding that the defendant’s 

contention that there was no factual basis for his guilty plea was barred by the 

plea); United States v. Fairchild, 803 F.2d 1121, 1124 (11th Cir. 1986) (per 

curiam) (holding that the defendant’s claim of an insufficient factual basis to 

support the indictment was a non-jurisdictional defect that was waived by his 

guilty plea).

 1

 Moreover, even if Castro Vargas had not waived this claim, it is still meritless. The 

indictment properly stated the essential elements of the charged offenses underlying Counts 1 

and 2, as well as Castro Vargas’s charged conduct. Accordingly, the indictment was sufficient. 

See United States v. Lang, 732 F.3d 1246, 1247 (11th Cir. 2013).

Case: 12-14855 Date Filed: 04/17/2014 Page: 4 of 7 
5

Castro Vargas waived, by virtue of his guilty plea, his challenge to the 

factual basis underlying his plea. Thus, as Castro Vargas’s claim alleging that 

there was an insufficient factual basis in support of his plea constitutes a nonjurisdictional challenge, it was waived by virtue of his guilty plea. See Johnson, 89 

F.3d at 784.2

III.

The failure to object to multiplicity in the indictment before trial waives the 

issue with regard to error in the indictment. United States v. Mastrangelo, 733 

F.2d 793, 800 (11th Cir. 1984). A failure to object to the indictment, however, will 

not bar a defendant from objecting to the imposition of multiple sentences. Id. If a 

defendant does not object to his multiple sentences below, we review only for plain 

error. United States v. Frank, 599 F.3d 1221, 1239 (11th Cir. 2010).

“An indictment is multiplicitous if it charges a single offense in more than 

one count.” United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235, 1241 (11th Cir. 2008). As a 

multiplicitous indictment gives the jury more than one opportunity to convict the 

 2

 In any event, we note here, too, that even if Castro Vargas had not waived this claim, it 

is still meritless. Upon entering into the plea agreement, Castro Vargas and the government 

jointly submitted an agreed-upon factual proffer relaying the facts underlying Castro Vargas’s 

guilty plea. At Castro Vargas’s change of plea hearing, the government orally summarized the 

factual proffer, and Castro Vargas admitted that the facts contained in the proffer were correct. 

As such, there was sufficient evidence upon which the district court could reasonably find that 

Castro Vargas committed the offenses underlying Counts 1 and 4. See United States v. 

Camacho, 233 F.3d 1308, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the district court did not plainly 

err in determining that Castro Vargas’s guilty plea was supported by a factual basis. See United 

States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S. Ct. 2333, 2340 (2004).

Case: 12-14855 Date Filed: 04/17/2014 Page: 5 of 7 
6

defendant for the same offense, such an indictment violates double-jeopardy 

principles. Id. 

We “use the Blockburger[3] test to determine whether an indictment is 

multiplicitous, verifying that each count requires an element of proof that the other 

counts do not require.” Williams, 527 F.3d at 1241. If counts in the indictment are 

multiplicitous, separate sentences resulting from those counts are also 

multiplicitous. See Mastrangelo, 733 F.2d at 800. We have held, however, that 

charges are not multiplicitous where they differ by even a single element or alleged 

fact. United States v. Costa, 947 F.2d 919, 926 (11th Cir. 1991). Further, we have

specifically concluded that “a conspiracy and the related substantive offense which 

is the object of the conspiracy, are separate and distinct offenses.” United States v. 

Ternus, 598 F.3d 1251, 1254–55 (11th Cir. 2010).

As an initial matter, because Castro Vargas did not object to the alleged 

multiplicity of his indictment before the district court, he has waived that issue on 

appeal. See Mastrangelo, 733 F.2d at 800. While Castro Vargas similarly did not 

object to the district court’s imposition of multiple consecutive sentences, his claim 

in this regard may proceed, subject to plain-error review. See Frank, 599 F.3d at 

1239; Mastrangelo, 733 F.2d at 800.

 3

 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S. Ct. 180, 182 (1932).

Case: 12-14855 Date Filed: 04/17/2014 Page: 6 of 7 
7

The district court did not plainly err in imposing consecutive sentences as to 

Counts 1 and 4. The conspiracy offense underlying Count 1 and the structuring 

offense underlying Count 4 were charged under separate statutes and consisted of 

distinct elements. See 18 U.S.C. § 371; 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3); Ratzlaf v.United 

States, 510 U.S. 135, 136, 114 S. Ct. 655, 657 (1994); United States v. Guerra, 293 

F.3d 1279, 1285 (11th Cir. 2002). Additionally, we have specifically held that a 

conspiracy and the related substantive offense are separate and distinct offenses. 

See Ternus, 598 F.3d at 1254–55. Thus, Counts 1 and 4 were not multiplicitous. 

See Costa, 947 F.2d at 926. Therefore, Castro Vargas’s consecutive sentences on 

Counts 1 and 4 also were not multiplicitous. See Mastrangelo, 733 F.2d at 800. 

Finally, Castro Vargas’s claim that the district court imposed consecutive 

sentences in excess of the applicable statutory maximum is unavailing. Under the 

applicable statutes of conviction, Castro Vargas faced a statutory maximum 

sentence of five years’ imprisonment as to each count. See 18 U.S.C. § 371; 31 

U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3), (d)(1). Thus, neither his 60-month sentence as to Count 1, 

nor his 12-month sentence as to Count 4, exceeded the applicable statutory 

maximum.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-14855 Date Filed: 04/17/2014 Page: 7 of 7