Opinion ID: 187004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Guilty Plea Claim

Text: Booker argues that the factual basis for [his] plea was woefully inadequate. Appellant's Br. at 33. Specifically, he contends that the district court failed to expressly inquire into the intent to distribute element of his offense. Because Booker did not raise this objection below, we review his claim for plain error only. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b) (A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court's attention.); see also United States v. Washington, 115 F.3d 1008, 1010 (D.C.Cir.1997). Under that standard, we will remedy a trial court error only if there is (1) `error,' (2) that is `plain,' and (3) that `affect[s] substantial rights' . . . [and] (4) the error `seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). An error affect[s] substantial rights if it is prejudicial. Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. To demonstrate prejudice in the context of a guilty plea, an appellant must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea. United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004). In his brief, see Appellant's Br. at 33, Booker expressly disavows that he is raising his claim under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(3) (Before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea.). At oral argument, Booker explained that he did not rely on Rule 11 because he could not demonstrate, as required by Dominguez Benitez, that but for the error, he would not have entered the plea. 542 U.S. at 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333. Because, as he forthrightly concedes, Booker cannot make that showing, he perforce cannot demonstrate prejudice, see Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (error prejudicial if it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings), and accordingly cannot demonstrate plain error. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. So ordered.