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

Heading: validity of defendant’s guilty plea

Text: Defendant entered his guilty plea on the day that trial was set to begin and without a plea agreement. He contends now that this guilty plea was invalid because the district court failed to establish a factual basis for the plea and to 4 Case: 14-10746 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 5 of 26 explain the elements of the offense, both of which are required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 11. We find no error by the court.
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.
As noted, Defendant argues that his guilty plea is invalid because the Government offered an insufficient factual basis. Specifically, he contends that the Government’s summary of the evidence supported only a finding that the goal of the conspirators was to import the cocaine, not distribute it. In addressing this contention, we note at the outset that because Defendant did not raise before the district court this objection, we review it for plain error, only. To obtain a reversal of the conviction under this standard, Defendant must show that there is error and that the error (1) is plain, (2) affects substantial rights, and (3) compromises the 7 Case: 14-10746 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 8 of 26 fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1018-19 (11th Cir. 2005); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Under Rule 11(b)(3), the plea must have a factual basis, meaning that there must be evidence presented to the court that could have reasonably resulted in the defendant’s conviction at trial. See United States v. Frye, 402 F.3d 1123, 1128 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that factual basis for plea was met by the defendant’s agreement to facts articulated at plea hearing by prosecution, which facts satisfied the elements of the offense). To prove that Defendant had conspired to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, the Government would have to prove that there was an illegal agreement to distribute the controlled substance, that Defendant knew about it, and that he knowingly and voluntarily joined in it. United States v. Isnadin, 742 F.3d 1278, 1305 (11th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 161 (2014). The Government’s summary of its case against Defendant accomplished this task. The prosecutor noted that the interdiction and seizure of the cocaine-laden vessels and their crew on August 6 and December 30, 2012 demonstrated the existence of a conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Further, evidence that Defendant had purchased and prepared the vessels that were used for the transfer and planned importation of cocaine demonstrated his participation in the conspiracy. Most 8 Case: 14-10746 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 9 of 26 significantly, Defendant admitted the accuracy of the above assertions by the Government, denying only that he was a leader in the venture. Defendant argues that the Government’s proffer was inadequate because it did not include any reference to a conspiracy to distribute the cocaine. This argument is unpersuasive because the conduct alleged to have been committed by Defendant implies his knowledge of a wider plan to distribute the cocaine once it had been imported into the United States. After all, there can be no rational purpose behind transporting over a million grams of cocaine except to ultimately transfer the drugs to others. “It is by now axiomatic that ‘participation in a criminal conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence; a common purpose or plan may be inferred from a development and collocation of circumstances.’” United States v. Reeves, 742 F.3d 487, 497 (11th Cir. 2014) (brackets removed) (quoting Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)). Further, “where there are repeated transactions between participants buying and selling large quantities of illegal drugs, that may be sufficient to find the participants were involved in a single conspiracy to distribute those drugs.” Id. (citing United States v. Brown, 587 F.3d 1082, 1089 (11th Cir. 2009)). Defendant’s participation in multiple purchases and preparations of vessels for cocaine transportation supports a conclusion that he was involved in a conspiracy to distribute the drug. 9 Case: 14-10746 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 10 of 26
Under Rule 11, the district court is required to determine that a defendant pleading guilty has not been coerced and that he understands the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. United States v. Stitzer, 785 F.2d 1506, 1513 & n.2 (11th Cir. 1986). If the charges do not involve “esoteric terms or concepts unfamiliar to the lay mind,” then reading the indictment and granting the opportunity for the defendant to ask questions may suffice to inform the defendant of the charges. United States v. James, 210 F.3d 1342, 1344-45 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. DePace, 120 F.3d 233, 237 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1153 (1998)). Even a complex charge can be understood adequately when (1) the defendant is reasonably educated, (2) the court reads the indictment and lists its essential elements, (3) the court confirms that the defendant and counsel have reviewed the indictment, (4) the defendant admits to the conduct, and (5) the defendant does not have any questions. Id. at 1345 (citing DePace, 120 F.3d at 238). The charge in this case was simple, involving no concept more complex or esoteric than “conspire” or “distribute.” These are surely concepts the lay mind can grasp. Further, Defendant confirmed at the hearing that his attorney had discussed the indictment with him and that he understood it. In addition, the district court read the charge in the indictment verbatim to Defendant before 10 Case: 14-10746 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 11 of 26 accepting his plea. Given these facts, it is clear that Defendant understood the charge against him. Thus, Defendant cannot meet the requirements for plain-error review because his allegations reveal no error, plain or otherwise, in the proceeding at which he entered his plea of guilty. We therefore affirm Defendant’s conviction.