FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 25, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 15 28 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 9- cr-1 03 -J -2 5TEM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us LEON GL ASPY, a.k .a. Ray, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 2 5, 2 01 0) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARTIN andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Leo n Gl as py ple d g ui lt y to all co un ts of ath ree- co un t i nd ic tm en t—two co un ts of d is tri bu ti ng co cai ne ba se an d o ne co un t o f po ss es si ng co cai ne ba se with in te ntto di st rib ut e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) —an d t he di st ric t co urt se nt en cedhi m

to co nc urren t p ris on term s o f 18 8 m on th s. He ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s o n t wo g ro un ds : (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt p la in ly erredwhenitfai le d t o su a s po nt e co nduc t a h eari ng to de te rm in e whe th er h e was co m pe te ntto en te r hi s gu il ty ple as ; (2 ) th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s m is st at em en ts du rin g h is ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng co nc ern in g t he len gt h o f th e te rm of s up erv is edrel eas e th athe face d affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. He ap pe al s h is sen te nc es on th e g ro un ds th atth ey are p ro cedur al ly andsubs tant iv el y un reas on ab le . W e fi rs t ad dr es s Gl as py’ s ch al le ng es to hi s co nv ic ti on s, t he n a dd res s the ch al le ng es to hi s s en te nc es . I. A. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fa il ur e to su a s po nt e ord er a h eari ng ona de fen da nt ’s com

pe te nc y to pl eadgu il ty or st an d t ria l fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 46 8 F .2d81 9, 8 20 (5t h C ir. 1 97 2) . This st an da rd ap pl ie s ev enwher e th e d efen da ntdi d n otreque sta co m pe te nc y he ari ng . Id . Alt ho ug h W

il li ams in vo lv edanearl ie r ve rs io n o f th e m en ta l co m pe te nc y st atut e, bo th th atve rs io n a ndth e cu rren t v ers io n i m po se on th e d is tri ctco urt t he same du ty 2to in qu ire in to a de fen dant ’s m en ta l co m pe te nc y . Se e id .; Uni te d Sta tes v. Iz qu ie rdo , 44 8 F .3d12 69 , 12 78 n.8 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ In19 84 , 18 U.S.C. § 4 24 4 was rep la cedby 18 U.S.C. § 42 41 .”); 18 U.S.C. § 4 24 1. The rig htno t t o p le adgu il ty whi le in co m pe te ntis on e o f th e m os t fu nd am en ta l co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Dro pe v. Mis so ur i , 42 0 U.S. 1 62 , 17 1- 72 , 95 S.Ct . 89 6, 9 04 , 43 L.Ed.2d10 3 (1 97 5) . The d is tri ctco urt m us t su a s po nt e ord er a he ari ng to de te rm in e th e m en ta l co m pe te nc e o f a d efen da nt“ if t he re i s re as on ab le cau se to be li ev e th atth e d efen da ntm ay pre se nt ly be su ffer in g fr om a m en ta l di se as e o r de fectren de rin g h im m en ta ll y in co m pe te ntto th e ex te ntth athe is un ab le to un de rs ta ndth e n atur e an d c on se qu en ces of t he pro ceed in gs ag ai ns t h im orto ass is t p ro pe rly in h is de fen se .” 18 U.S.C. § 4 24 1( a); se e Pat e v. Rob in so n , 38 3 U.S. 3 75 , 38 5, 8 6 S .Ct. 8 36 , 84 2, 1 5 L.Ed .2d81 5 (1 96 6) (ho ld in g t ha t a t ria l co urt m us t co nduc t, su a s

po nt e , a co m

pe te nc y he ari ng when th e in fo rm at io n kn own to th e tr ia l co urt atth e ti m e o f th e tr ia l o r pl ea i s s uf fic ie ntto rai se a bo na fid e d oubtreg ard in g t he de fen da nt ’s com pe te nc e). A de fen da ntis co m pe te ntto pl eadgu il ty if he “ ha s s uf fic ie ntpre se ntab il it y

to co ns ul t wi th hi s . . . lawyer with a rea so nabl e d eg ree o f rat io na l und ers ta nd in g a nd. . . ha s a r at io na l as well as factua l u nd ers ta nd in g o f th e p ro ceed in gs .” Ti ll er v. Esp os it o , 91 1 F .2d57 5, 5 76 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) (ci ta ti onan d i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . 3W e co ns id er thr ee fa ct or s i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d

th e d efen da nt ’s rig htto pro cedur al du e p ro ces s b y fai li ng to su a s

po nt eco nduc t a co m pe te nc y he ari ng : (1 ) whe th er the de fen da ntev id en cedirr at io na l b eh av io r be fo re the co urt; (2) whet he r hi s d em ean orbe fo re the co urt i nd ic at eda la ckof co m pe te nc e to pro ceed ; an d (3 ) whe th er the co urt was aware o f an y pri orm ed ic al op in io n re ga rd in g t he de fen da nt ’s com pe te nc e to st an d t ria l. Dro pe , 42 0 U.S. at 18 0, 9 5 S .Ct. at90 8. Th e fai lu re o f a d efen da ntor h is co un se l t o ra is e th e co m pe te nc y is su e is “pe rs ua si ve ev id en ce t ha t n o Pat evi ol at io n o ccu rred .” Rees e v. W ai nw ri gh t , 60 0 F .2d10 85 , 10 92 (5t h C ir. 1 97 9) (in vo lv in g ahabe as co rp us pe ti ti on ). Men ta l re tard at io n a lo ne do es no t m ak e a p ers onin co m pe te ntto st an d tri al . Atki ns v. Vir

gi ni a , 53 6 U.S. 3 04 , 31 8, 1 22 S.Ct . 22 42 , 22 50 , 15 3 L.Ed .2d 33 5 (2 00 2) . Inth is cas e, Glas py has no t s ho wn t ha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n fa il in g t o su a s po nt e ord er a co m

pe te nc y he ari ng . The rec or d co nt ai ns no ev id en ce i nd ic at in g t ha t h e b eh av edirr at io na ll y , th athi s at to rn ey reque st eda co m

pe te nc y he ari ng , or t ha t t he co urt was aware o f a p rio r m ed ic al op in io n re ga rd in g h is co m pe te nc e to st an d t ria l.

B.

4Bec au se Glas py didno t o bjec t t o t he co ll oquy the m ag is tra te jud ge

co nduc te d p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 1 1, we re vi ew th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s m is st at em en t fo r pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Beja ra no , 24 9 F.3 d 1 30 4, 1 30 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . To es tabl is h p la in erro r, Glas py “ m us t s ho w th atth ere i s (1 ) erro r (2 ) th atis pl ai n a nd(3) th ataffe ct [s ] subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Le

ja rde-Ra da , 31 9 F .3d12 88 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . If th os e co nd it io ns are m et , we hav e th e d is cret io n t o n ot ic e th e fo rfei te d e rro r on ly if itser io us ly affect edth e fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs . Id . Glas py bear s t he bu rd enof s ho win g t ha t h e was pre jud ic edby a clea r an d o bv io us erro r th ataffe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Beja ra no , 24 9 F .3dat 1 30 6. To es tabl is h p reju di ce i n t he co nt ex t o f a Ru le 11 erro r, Glas py m us t s ho w a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utforth e erro r, he wou ldno t h av e en te redth e p le a. Uni te d Sta tes v. Do min gu ezBeni te z , 54 2 U.S. 7 4, 8 3, 1 24 S. Ct. 2 33 3, 2 34 0, 1 59 L.Ed.2 d 1 57 (20 04 ). W e co ns id er the reco rdas awho le in ass es si ng whethe r a Ru le 11 erro r affe ct edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . Uni te d Sta tes v. Vo nn , 53 5 U.S. 5 5, 5 9, 1 22 S.Ct . 10 43 , 10 46 , 15 2 L.Ed .2d90 (20 02 ). Even if Gl as py es tabl is he s p reju di ci al erro r, we m ay no t re m edy

th aterro r un le ss it“ se rio us ly affe ct s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” 5Puc ket t v. Un it ed St at es , 55 6 U.S. _

__ , __ _, 1 29 S.Ct . 14 23 , 14 29 , 17 3 L.Ed .2d 26 6 (2 00 9) (al te rat io n, i nt ern al qu ot at io ns , andcit at io n o m it te d) . In Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , th e d efen da ntwas i m pr op erl y advi se d b y

bo th a writ te n p le a ag reem en t an d t he di st ric t co urt tha t h e fac eda m ax im um th ree- y ear te rm of s up erv is edrel eas e, rat he r th anfiv e y ears to li fe. 5 86 F.3d13 42 , 13 45 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) , cer t. d

en ie d , 13 0 S .Ct. 2 40 3 (2 01 0) . He ul ti m at el y rece iv eda li fe te rm of s up erv is edrel eas e. Id . Und er the se fact s, we h el d t ha t, b ecau se th e in co rrec t t erm

of s up erv is edrel eas e h adbe enco rrec te d i n t he PSI, an d t he de fen da ntha d n otob

jecte d t o the PSI’s s ta te m en t co nc ern in g h is st atut ory ran ge of supe rv is edrel eas e, th e d efen dant ’s con du ctin di cat edth athi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s were n otharm edby the erro r. Id . at 1 34 6. Ru le 11 requi res th e co urt t o i nf orm a de fen da ntof, a m on g o th er thi ng s,

“ an y m an da to ry

min im um pe na lt y .” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 11 (b )(1 )(I). Th e m an da to ry m in im um term s o f supe rv is edrel eas e were t hr ee years fo r Co un ts One a ndTwo, an d fo ur y ears forCo un t Th ree. 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(B) , (b) (1 )(C) . Alt ho ug h t he m ag is tra te jud ge affi rm at iv el y mis advi se d Gl as py abo utth e te rm of s up erv is edrel eas e th athe face d, Gl as py has no t s ho wn tha t t hi s erro r affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s wh ere h e h adno ti ce o f th e co rrec t t erm fro m hi s

6arra ig nm en t h eari ng , fro m th e g ov ern m en t’s n ot ic e o f m ax im um pe na lt ie s, an d fro m th e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt. II. W e rev ie w a se nt en ce i m po se d b y a di st ric t co urt fo r rea so nabl en es s, u si ng anab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 97 , 16 9 L.Ed .2d44 5 (2 00 7) . The b ur de n o f pr oo f is on th e p art y ch al le ng in g t he reas on ab le ne ss of t he sen te nc e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Th oma s , 44 6 F .3d 13 48 , 13 51 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Inrev ie win g t he reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e, we “ m us t fi rs t en su re tha t t he di st ric t co urt co m

m it te d n o s ig ni fic an t p ro cedur al erro r, su chas f ai li ng to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g the Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as edon cl earl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e.” Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S .Ct. at59 7. Th e d is tri ctco urt i s n otrequi redto sp eci fic al ly dis cu ss each § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or , pro vi de d t ha t t he co urt ac kn owl ed ge s th atitco ns id eredall of t he fact or s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 86 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Howev er, the sen te nc in g ju dg e “ sh ou ldsetforth en ou gh to sa ti sf y th e ap pe ll at e co urt t ha t h e h as co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d h as a

7reas on edba si s fo r ex erci si ng hi s o wn l eg al de ci si on m ak in g aut ho rit y .” Rita v .

Uni te d Sta tes , 55 1 U.S. 3 38 , 35 6, 1 27 S.Ct . 24 56 , 24 68 , 16 8 L.Ed .2d20 3 (2 00 7) . Afte r de te rm in in g t ha t a s en te nc e is pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e, we m us t de te rm in e whe th er the sen te nc e im po se d i s s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e b as edon th e fact or s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S .Ct. at59 7. Th es e fact or s i nc lu de , am on g o th er thi ng s, t he na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se ; th e h is to ry

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt ; t he ne edfora se nt en ce t o re fle ct th e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, andpro vi de jus t pu ni sh m en t fo r th e o ffen se ; t he ne edto de te r cri m in al co nduc t; th e n eedto av oi d un warra nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s b etween si m il arl y si tu at edde fen da nt s; an d t he advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge . 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). The di st ric t co urt s ha ll im po se a se nt en ce tha t i s s uf

fic ie nt , bu t n otgre at er tha n n eces sa ry , to co m pl y with t he pu rp os e o f th es e fac to rs . Se e id . W e h av e rec og ni zedth at“ th ere i s a r an ge of reas on ab le sen te nc es fro m whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt m ay ch oo se .” Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d at78 8. We “ wil l d efer

to th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t re gard in g t he weig htgi ve n to th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s u nl es s t he di st ric t co urt h as m ad e a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d) , cer t. d en ie d , 12 9 S .Ct. 2 84 8 (2 00 9) .

8Glas py’ s s en te nc es are p ro cedur al ly reaso nabl e b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt,

in te r a li a , ade qu at el y

ex pl ai ne d i ts ba si s fo r de nyin g Gl as py’ s re qu es t fo r a va ria nc e, no ti ng th atth e fac ts of t he cas e d idno t ju st ify a dep artur e, th atGlas py’ s si tu at io n a lre ady

ha d b een de al t wi th as b es t i t co ul d b y th e syst em , andth at Glas py prev io us ly hadbe ensen te nc edfordru g t raff ic ki ng . Glas py’ s s en te nc es al so are s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e g iv enth e fac t tha t h is pri orin carc erat io ns di d n ot de te r hi s d ru g t raff

ic ki ng an d h e rep eat ed ly retu rn edto co m m it ti ng cri m e aft er be in g re le as edfro m

pri so n. Glas py’ s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es are AFFIR MED.

9