FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 27, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 58 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-0 01 90 -ODE-AJB -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DIYIANA CLAY DAMAYO, 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 North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 2 7, 2 01 2) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Diyian a Cl ay

Dam ay o app eal s h er co nv ic ti on s af te r pl ead in g g ui lt y

to m ai l frau d, 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 41 , andag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft, 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 28 A(a) an d(b )(2 ). Dam ay o was sen te nc edto a to ta l t erm of 1 32 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af firm . On ap pe al , Dam ay o c ha ll en ge s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f he r pr o s e m ot io n t o wi th dr aw he r gu il ty ple a. W e rev ie w a di stric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a * m ot io n t o wi th dr aw a g ui lty pl ea fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Izqui erd o, 4 48 F.3d12 69 , 12 76 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). W e wil l n otrev ers e th e d is tri ct co urt’s d eci si on un le ss it s d en ia l was “ arb it rary andun reas on ab le .” Id . A def en da ntha s n o abs ol ut e ri gh t t o wi th dr aw a g ui lt y pl ea. Uni te d S ta te s v. Bu ck le s, 8 43 F.2d46 9, 4 71 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). Bu t a d efen da ntm ay do so if s he is ab le to sh ow a “ fai r an d ju streas on ” fo r th e reque st . Id. Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r a d efen da ntha s m etth is bu rd en , th e d is tri ctco urt co ns id ers th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces surro un di ng th e p le a, in cl ud in g the se fact or s: “ (1 ) whe th er cl os e as si st an ce o f co un se l was av ai labl e; (2) whet he r th e p le a was kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary; (3) whet he r jud ic ia l re so ur ces wou ldbe co ns erv ed ; an d (4 ) whe th er the go ve rn m en t wo ul d b e p reju di cedif the de fen da ntwere al lo wedto withd raw h is Damayo also argues that the district cour t erre d in holding her

acc ountable for

the total fra

ud * loss, but we have a lrea dy grante d the g overnme nt’s motion to di smiss this claim based on Damayo’s sentenc e appe al waive r. And, be cause Damayo fails to elabor ate on he r ineff ective assistance of counse l claim -- mentioned only in the “Summary

of the Argument” sec tion of her brief - - she ha s waived that issue. See United States v. Gupta, 463 F .3d 1182, 1195 (11th Cir. 2006) (e x plaining that a par ty waives a n issue mentioned in her ope ning brief whe n she fa ils to offe r substantive arguments to support it). 2pl ea.” Id . at 4 72 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Buton ce the co urt d et erm in es th ata

de fen da ntrece iv edclo se ass is tanc e o f co un se l an d e nt eredhe r pl ea kno win gl y an d vo lu nt ari ly, li tt le weig htis gi ve n t o t he rem ai ni ng two Bu ck le s fa ct or s. See Uni te d S tate s v . Gon zal ez-M erca do , 80 8 F .2d79 6, 8 01 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). W e se e n o abu se of d is cret io n i n t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f Dam ay o’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw he r gu il ty ple a. Und er the fir stpa rt o f Bu ck le s, we co nc lu de th atDam ay o re cei ve d c lo se ass is ta nc e o f co un se l. Durin g ahe ari ng on Dam ay o’s pr o s e m ot io ns forne w cou ns el an d t o wi th dr aw he r gu il ty ple a, Dam ay o’s l awy er te st ifi edth athe ha d s pe ntbe twee n 1 20 an d 1 50 ho ur s wo rk in g o n Dam ay o’s ca se . Dur in g t hi s t im e, Dam ay o’s l awy er co nduc te d e xt en si ve in ve st ig at io n and di sc ov ery an d d is cu ss edwith Dam ay o s ev eral ti m es th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t h er, the go ve rn m en t’s p os it io n, an d t he po te nt ia l s en te nc in g c on se qu en ces . The reco rdals o s ho ws tha t Dam ay o c on su lt edwith h er l awy er re pe at ed ly du rin g h er p le a h eari ng be fo re an swe rin g t he di st ric t co urt’s que st io ns an d pl ead in g g ui lty . Dam ay o c on firm edth atsh e h addi sc us se d t he gu id el in es with h er la wy er, h adbe engi ve n a de qu at e ti m e to co ns ul t wi th he r la wy er ab ou t h er ca se , an d was sat is fie d wi th he r la wy er’s rep res en ta ti on . She ha s n otov erco m e th e st ro ng pre su m

pt io n t ha t s ta te m en ts m ad e dur in g t he pl ea co ll oquy are tru e. See Uni te d S tate s v . Med lo ck , 12 F.3d18 5, 1 87 (11 thCir . 19 94 ). 3The reco rdals o d em on st rat es th atDam ay o’s g ui lt y pl ea was kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary. In d et erm in in g wh ethe r a p le a was kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry , th e d is tri ct co urt m us t ad dr es s thr ee co re co nc ern s u nd erl y in g F ed .R.Cri m .P. 11 : (1 ) whe th er th e p le a was free fro m

co erci on ; (2 ) whe th er d efen da ntun de rs to odth e n atur e o f th e ch arg es ; an d (3 ) whe th er d efen da ntun de rs to odth e co ns eque nc es of h er g ui lty pl ea. Uni te d S ta te s v . Hern an de z-Fr ai re, 2 08 F.3d94 5, 9 49 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Dur in g h er p le a h eari ng , Dam ay o c on firm edth es e th in gs : (1 ) th atsh e was pl ead in g g ui lty

“ free ly andvo lu nt ari ly”; (2 ) th atth e g ov ern m en t’s fa ctua l p ro ffer was accurat e; (3) th atsh e und ers to odth e ri gh ts sh e was gi vi ng up by ple ad in g gu il ty; an d (4 ) th atsh e und ers to odth e ran ge of s en te nc es sh e co ul d fa ce. Tha t Dam ay o h addi ffi cu lty

un de rs ta nd in g -- de sp it e h er l awy er’s an d t he co urt’s ex pl ic itan d re pe at edin st ru ct io ns -- th atsh e co ul d b e h el d a cco un tabl e fo r he r co de fen dant ’s frau du le ntact s d oe s n otch an ge ou r an al y si s. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Haurin g, 7 90 F.2d15 70 , 15 71 -7 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) (co nc lu di ng th atth e d is tri ct co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re fu si ng to all ow a d efen dantto withd raw h is gu il ty ple a whe re d efen da nt ’s subjec ti ve be li ef tha t h e co ul d l at er wi th dr aw hi s pl ea was un

jus ti fie d) . The ti min g o f Dam ay o’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw he r pl ea i s al so si gn ifi can t. Tha t Dam ay o fi le d h er m ot io n o nl y aft er re cei vi ng he r Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n 4Rep ort -- a fu ll two m on th s af te r en te rin g h er g ui lt y

pl ea -- in di cat es th atsh e was li ke ly m ot iv at edby her d is sa ti sf act io n wi th he r po te nt ia l s en te nc e in st eadof b y a ch an ge of h eartab ou t p le ad in g g ui lt y . See Go nz al ez-M erca do , 80 8 F .2dat 8 01 (ex pl ai ni ng th at“ th e ti m e b etweenen try of a p le a an d m ot io n t o wi th dr aw th e p le a m ay be in di cat iv e o f de fen da nt ’s m ot iv at io n” an d tha t d efen da nt s s ho ul d n otbe pe rm it te d “ to us e th e g ui lty pl ea as a m ean s o f te st in g t he weig htof t he po te nt ia l se nt en ce.”) . The rem ai ni ng Bu ck le s fa ct or s d o n otsupp ort Dam ay o’s ar gu m en t; an d be cau se Dam ay o e njo y edclo se ass is ta nc e o f co un se l an d e nt ereda kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary pl ea, we n eedno t g iv e th es e fac to rs co ns id erab le weig ht . See Go nz al ezMer cad o, 8 08 F.2dat 8 01 . Giv enth e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e d is tri ct co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Dam ay o’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw he r pl ea. AFFIRMED.

5