Opinion ID: 67922
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Decision to Continue With Sentencing

Text: Ray argues that he did not effectively waive his right to withdraw his guilty plea, because the waiver was not voluntary, in light of the government’s threat to withdraw its U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion if he withdrew his plea. He contends that it is unconstitutional for the government to refuse to file a § 5K1.1 motion as punishment for exercising his Sixth Amendment rights. Ray secondly contends that his decision to persist in his guilty plea was unduly influenced by that court’s statement that it had “every intention of giving [Ray] 120 months today.” He asserts that this statement violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)’s prohibition on courts participating in plea negotiations. Ray argues that the combination of the breach of the plea agreement, the government’s improper threat to withhold its § 5K1.1 motion, and the court’s involvement in plea negotiations constituted plain error. First, we do not construe the government’s observation at sentencing that withdrawing the guilty plea might preclude the possibility of a future § 5K1.1 motion as a threat. Moreover, because Ray does not contend that he would have withdrawn his guilty plea in the absence of the government’s “threat,” Ray has failed to establish any prejudice to his substantial rights and thus failed to show 4 plain error. Second, we find no merit to Ray’s argument that the district court impermissibly participated in the plea negotiations. Because Ray bases his Rule 11 challenge solely on comments the district court made during sentencing, rather than during the plea bargaining process, and because we have never applied Rule 11 to a district court’s post-plea comments, Ray has failed to establish plain error. Accordingly, we affirm Ray’s sentence. AFFIRMED. 5