Opinion ID: 4517801
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: The district court did not err in denying Rojasʹs motion because the deportation warning given during his plea allocution was accurate and the record is clear that Rojas fully understood the immigration consequences of his plea.1 Rojas pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute MDMA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, on April 3, 2015. Before accepting the plea, the district court addressed Rojas as follows: [I]tʹs very important that you understand that as a result of your plea, youʹre likely to be deported and that deportation may be mandatory. Did you discuss the possible immigration consequences of your plea with your attorney? 1 The Government argues that Rojasʹs claim is procedurally barred by his failure to raise it on direct appeal and was waived by his plea agreement. Because we hold that Rojasʹs claim fails on the merits, we do not reach these procedural issues. 4 Appʹx at 66. Rojas replied, ʺYes, your Honor.ʺ Appʹx at 67. Rojas contends that the courtʹs instructions failed to satisfy Rule 11 because the court used the words ʺlikelyʺ and ʺmay be mandatoryʺ when deportation was, according to him, an unambiguous certainty in his case. But deportation was not a certainty. As Rojas conceded in his motion below, at least two avenues of relief from deportation remained potentially available to him following his guilty plea ‐‐ successful completion of the Southern Districtʹs Young Adult Opportunity Program (which can in certain circumstances result in the dismissal of charges), see Appʹx at 152 n.4, and the filing of a claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Appʹx at 163 n.2. Thus, even though Rojasʹs chances of avoiding removal were slim, there was a possibility that he could do so. If the district court had advised him that deportation was certain, that advice would have been wrong. The district courtʹs statement that ʺdeportation may be mandatoryʺ was accurate in the circumstances, and cannot form the basis for a finding that Rojasʹs plea was involuntary. See Zhang, 506 F.3d at 168 (ʺIf the statements were accurate at the time they were made, then they could not reasonably be said to be misleading and could not have rendered [the defendantʹs] guilty plea involuntary.ʺ). And even assuming there was error, on this record the error was not plain.