Opinion ID: 2811805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Guilty Plea Colloquy

Text: During the change-of-plea hearing, the district court went over with Defendant all those matters that Rule 11 requires to be discussed before a court can accept a defendant’s plea of guilty. 2 As to the factual basis for the plea, the court directed the prosecutor to summarize the evidence that would have been presented at trial. In response, the prosecutor stated that the Government could prove beyond a reasonable doubt: That on December 30th, 2012, the Coast Guard interdicted a vessel approximately 15 miles southwest of St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. Aboard that vessel were two individuals. Also aboard the vessel was recovered 1,157 kilograms of cocaine. It should be noted that further investigation revealed that this Defendant was the organizer and leader of a drug-trafficking organization that would facilitate the importation of cocaine from South America, specifically, Colombia and Venezuela, and then would organize a maritime boat-to-boat transfer of bales of cocaine. He would obtain the vessels used to import the cocaine to the United States. He would purchase these vessels from various places, including a company in Broward County called Boats 4 Less. He 2 Diaz makes passing reference to the district court’s failure, as required by Rule 11(b)(1)(A), to warn him that he could be charged with perjury should he answer falsely any questions. Yet, Diaz does not pursue this contention and, as far as we can tell, no one is trying to prosecute him for perjury based on his Rule 11 colloquy. Accordingly, we conclude that this minor omission by the court did not render Defendant’s plea unknowing or involuntary. See United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1020 (11th Cir. 2005) (no plain error in failing to advise the defendant of all the information in Rule 11(b)(1) when defendant made no attempt to argue on appeal that he would not have entered the plea had he had that information). 5 Case: 14-10746 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 6 of 26 would take those vessels and then stage them in various places, specifically in this instance in either Puerto Rico or St. Croix, and would have those vessels staged there, ready for a maritime transfer of cocaine. In this case, there was seized, as indicated, on December 30th 1,157 kilograms. The Government’s evidence would also show that this Defendant was also involved as a related conduct [sic] on an August 6th, 2012, seizure of also [sic] cocaine, a maritime seizure off the coast of Puerto Rico. And in that case, there was 1,032 kilograms of cocaine seized. Defendant confirmed to the court that the information provided by the prosecutor was correct, with one exception: Defendant denied that he was the leader of the organization at issue. Government counsel then summarized the evidence he would have presented at trial to prove that Defendant was a leader, which evidence consisted of audio recordings in which Defendant discusses the smuggling activities and his role in them. At this point, the court interrupted, saying, “Mr. Rosado, let me discuss this for a moment, because I want you to make sure that you’re aware of the consequences of the dispute.” The court explained that, although disagreement as to Defendant’s leadership role would not bar entry of the guilty plea, Defendant’s insistence on denying his leadership role could have implications for the sentence to be imposed. Specifically, the court advised that, at the sentencing hearing, the Government would only have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant was a leader of the conspiracy in order to justify the role enhancement. 6 Case: 14-10746 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 7 of 26 In addition, efforts to dispute that characterization could potentially affect the likelihood of Defendant receiving an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under the Guidelines. Defendant confirmed that he understood. Finally, the court asked Defendant about the reasons behind his last-minute decision to change his plea, and particularly whether Defendant and his counsel had sufficient time to make that decision. Defendant explained that he wanted to plead guilty all along, and that he had thoroughly considered that decision. The court concluded the proceedings by reading the charges contained in the indictment and asking how Defendant wished to plead, to which Defendant responded, “Guilty, sir.” The court accepted the plea and set a sentencing date.