Opinion ID: 44657
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequate Factual Basis for the Guilty Plea

Text: On appeal, Rodriguez argues that the district court plainly erred under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 by failing to ensure that there was an adequate factual basis for the conspiracy charge before accepting his guilty plea.1 Specifically, Rodriguez contends that the factual proffer did not support the conspiracy charge because it did not establish that there was an unlawful agreement between Rodriguez and a non-government agent. In order to establish Rodriguez’s conspiracy conviction, the government had to prove the existence of an agreement between two or more people. See United States v. Simpson, 228 F.3d 1294, 1298 (11th Cir. 2000). “If there are only two members of a conspiracy, neither may be a government agent or informant who aims to frustrate the conspiracy.” United States v. Arbane, 446 F.3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 2006). The existence of an agreement may be inferred from the 1 When a defendant has not challenged the factual basis of his guilty plea in district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003). To establish plain error, Rodriguez must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S. Ct. 2333, 2340 (2004). 5 defendant’s conduct or from circumstantial evidence of a scheme. Id. At the plea colloquy, the district court informed Rodriguez that the government would have to prove that two or more people entered into a plan to possess five or more kilograms of cocaine. Rodriguez stipulated to the written factual proffer, which provided, “Roman Rodriguez further stated that he had a driver who could transport future deliveries of cocaine . . . . During a subsequent conversation, Roman Rodriguez agreed to use his transportation and to return to Miami on a later date to complete the initial transaction of cocaine.” Rodriguez’s claim that the government did not identify another person involved in the conspiracy besides the undercover officer is belied by the stipulated facts. In the factual proffer, Rodriguez expressly admitted that he had a driver who would transport the cocaine and that Rodriguez would use his transportation to complete the initial transaction. This admission is sufficient to establish the existence of at least two conspirators. Accordingly, there was an adequate factual basis for Rodriguez’s guilty plea.2 In any event, Rodriguez cannot show plain error, and we affirm his convictions.