Court Opinion

ID: 9392981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-08 20:01:22.630286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:50.228592
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11720    Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 05/08/2023   Page: 1 of 9

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11720
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       EMANUEL BEACH,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cr-00029-AW-MAF-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11720      Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 05/08/2023     Page: 2 of 9

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11720

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

       PER CURIAM:
              Emanuel Beach appeals his conviction and 360-month sen-
       tence for possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of
       methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
       841(b)(1)(B)(viii). First, Beach contends that the district court
       abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty
       plea despite his repeated claims that his lawyer had promised a ten-
       year sentence if he pled. Second, he says that the district court’s
       sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Third,
       Beach argues that the district court erred in classifying him as a ca-
       reer drug offender and enhancing his sentence as a result.
             The parties are acquainted with the facts, so we repeat them
       here only as necessary to decide the case. After considering the
       record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
                                         I
               We review the district court’s decision to deny a defendant’s
       motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United
       States v. McCarty, 99 F.3d 383, 385 (11th Cir. 1996). “The denial of a
       motion to withdraw a guilty plea is not an abuse of discretion un-
       less the denial was arbitrary or unreasonable.” United States v.
       Izquierdo, 448 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
       omitted).
USCA11 Case: 22-11720       Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 05/08/2023      Page: 3 of 9

       22-11720                Opinion of the Court                           3

               The defendant may withdraw his guilty plea after the dis-
       trict court accepts it but before sentencing if he “can show a fair
       and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P.
       11(d)(2)(B). But “[t]here is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty
       plea.” United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir. 1994).
       The “good faith, credibility and weight” of the defendant’s repre-
       sentations in support of the motion to withdraw are issues for the
       trial court to decide. United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469, 472 (11th
       Cir. 1988). Furthermore, “[t]here is a strong presumption that the
       statements made during the [plea] colloquy are true.” Medlock,
       12 F.3d at 187. Thus, any post-colloquy withdrawals “bear[] a
       heavy burden to show” that the statements made under oath were
       false. United States v. Rogers, 848 F.2d 166, 168 (11th Cir. 1988).
               To analyze the propriety of a defendant’s request to with-
       draw his plea, we consider the totality of the circumstances, pay-
       ing particular attention to the four Buckles factors: “(1) whether
       close assistance of counsel was available; (2) whether the plea was
       knowing and voluntary; (3) whether judicial resources would be
       conserved; and (4) whether the government would be prejudiced
       if the defendant were allowed to withdraw his plea.” Buckles, 843
       F.2d at 472 (internal citation omitted). A defendant isn’t permitted
       to use his guilty plea to gauge the potential sentence that he faces.
       United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d 796, 801 (11th Cir. 1987).
       Thus, the timing of the motion is relevant because it could point
       to the defendant’s motivation for seeking to withdraw his guilty
       plea. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-11720      Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 05/08/2023     Page: 4 of 9

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11720

              The totality of the circumstances reveals that the district
       court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying Beach’s motion to with-
       draw his guilty plea. On the first Buckles factor, Beach confirmed
       that he received close assistance of counsel. See Buckles, 843 F.2d at
       472. During the change of plea hearing colloquy, Beach stated that
       he had spoken with his counsel about his criminal charge and un-
       derstood the penalties it carried. Beach stated that he was satisfied
       with his counsel’s representation, denied having any complaints
       about his counsel, and said that there was nothing that he thought
       his counsel should have done differently. His sworn statements
       indicate that he received close assistance of counsel.
              As for the second Buckles factor, the transcript from Beach’s
       plea colloquy shows that he entered the plea agreement knowingly
       and voluntarily. See Buckles, 843 F.2d at 472. As for voluntariness,
       Beach denied that the government had made any promises that
       weren’t included in the plea documents or that anyone had threat-
       ened him. United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir.
       2005). He also confirmed that no one promised him what his sen-
       tence would be. While Beach now asserts that his attorney made
       him promises about his sentence, he marshals scant evidence to
       overcome the strong presumption that his previous statements
       during the plea colloquy were true. See Medlock, 12 F.3d at 187.
              As to knowledge, the district court read aloud Beach’s
       charge and the elements of that charge during the plea colloquy.
       The transcript shows that he knew the factual basis and terms of
       his plea agreement. Beach also stated that he understood how his
USCA11 Case: 22-11720       Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 05/08/2023      Page: 5 of 9

       22-11720                Opinion of the Court                           5

       conduct mapped onto the charge. When the district court asked if
       he was planning to use all of the methamphetamine or if he
       planned to distribute it to others, he replied, “[b]oth.” Beach then
       confirmed that he intended to distribute and sell at least five grams
       of methamphetamine. Finally, Beach stated that he understood the
       consequences of his plea, including the effect of the government’s
       notice of enhancement and the minimum and maximum statutory
       sentence based on his prior convictions. He also acknowledged
       that his actual sentence would be determined at a subsequent hear-
       ing and could range up to life imprisonment. Likewise, he knew
       that the length of his resulting sentence wouldn’t constitute a basis
       to withdraw his guilty plea. Accordingly, Beach failed to show that
       he didn’t enter into the guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. See
       Buckles, 843 F.2d at 472.
              What’s more, Beach brought the pertinent motion to with-
       draw his guilty plea only after the district court announced that it
       intended to sentence him to 360 months’ imprisonment. That sug-
       gests that his motivation was due to dissatisfaction with his sen-
       tence, which isn’t a valid basis for Beach to withdraw his guilty
       plea. Gonzalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d at 801.
               If an appellant doesn’t satisfy the first two Buckles factors, it
       isn’t necessary to thoroughly analyze the remaining two. See id.
       (affirming a district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty
       plea based on the first two factors but declining to give “considera-
       ble weight” to the third factor or “particular attention” to the pos-
       sibility of prejudice to the government). Because Beach failed the
USCA11 Case: 22-11720      Document: 45-1       Date Filed: 05/08/2023     Page: 6 of 9

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  22-11720

       first two Buckles factors, we conclude that the district court didn’t
       err in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See id.
                                          II
              In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we ﬁrst con-
       sider whether the district court committed a procedural error, such
       as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, selecting the sen-
       tence based on clearly erroneous facts, inadequately explaining the
       chosen sentence, or failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors. Gall v.
       United States, 522 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We review the procedural rea-
       sonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion, the interpreta-
       tion and application of the Guidelines de novo, and the factual ﬁnd-
       ings for clear error. United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1194
       (11th Cir. 2011).
              The district court didn’t impose a procedurally unreasonable
       sentence in Beach’s case. It properly calculated his adjusted oﬀense
       level of 37 and Guidelines range of 360 months to life imprison-
       ment, and it correctly noted that the minimum term of imprison-
       ment was 10 years with the maximum being life. U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1,
       3C1, 4B1.1(b)(1); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). Additionally, in fash-
       ioning Beach’s sentence, the district court considered the statutory
       purposes of sentencing, the advisory guidelines, the § 3553(a) fac-
       tors, and the parties’ arguments. Finally, there is no indication in
       the record that the district court selected the sentence based on
       clearly erroneous facts or failed to adequately explain the chosen
       sentence. See Gall, 522 U.S. at 51.
USCA11 Case: 22-11720      Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 05/08/2023     Page: 7 of 9

       22-11720               Opinion of the Court                         7

                After reviewing for procedural error, we consider the sub-
       stantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse-of-discretion
       standard. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. On substantive reasonableness re-
       view, we may vacate the sentence only if we are left with the deﬁ-
       nite and ﬁrm conviction that the district court committed a clear
       error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors to arrive at an
       unreasonable sentence based on the facts of the case. United States
       v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Although we
       don’t “automatically presume a sentence” falling within the Guide-
       lines range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to
       be so. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008). A
       sentence imposed well below the statutory maximum penalty is an-
       other indication of reasonableness. United States v. Gonzalez,
       550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
                Beach contends that his sentence is substantively unreason-
       able because the district court improperly considered testimony
       from government cooperators about unconnected drug transac-
       tions that occurred a year before Beach was ultimately arrested for
       the present violation. There are no limitations on the information
       a sentencing court may receive and consider “concerning the back-
       ground, character, and conduct of the person convicted of an of-
       fense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3661. For instance, the sentencing court may
       consider uncharged and acquitted conduct when determining the
       appropriate sentence. United States v. Maitre, 898 F.3d 1151, 1160
       n.6 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Hamaker, 455 F.3d 1316,
       1336 (11th Cir. 2006)). Even if a defendant’s conduct is completely
       unrelated to his oﬀense of conviction, it may be considered as part
USCA11 Case: 22-11720      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 05/08/2023     Page: 8 of 9

       8                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11720

       of his history and characteristics under § 3553(a). United States v.
       Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627, 638 n.14 (11th Cir. 2013).
              The district court here explicitly stated that it considered the
       additional drug quantity that the cooperators attributed to Beach
       only to inform Beach’s history, background, character, and con-
       duct under § 3553(a), not to calculate his Guidelines range. Thus,
       it didn’t err in considering their testimony. Maitre, 898 F.3d at 1160
       n.6. Furthermore, Beach’s 360-month sentence is at the bottom of
       the Guidelines range and well below the maximum penalty of life
       imprisonment, which further indicates that his sentence is reason-
       able. Hunt, 526 F.3d at 746; Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. Accord-
       ingly, Beach’s 360-month sentence is both procedurally and sub-
       stantively reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
                                         III
               Finally, Beach contends that the district court improperly el-
       evated his total oﬀense level from 34 to 37 based on its determina-
       tion that two prior Florida drug-related convictions required apply-
       ing the career-oﬀender enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a),
       (b)(1). We disagree with Beach on two bases.
              First, the district court didn’t err in its determination that
       Beach qualiﬁed for the career-oﬀender enhancement. This Court
       has held that drug convictions under Fla. Stat. § 893.13—the statute
       under which Beach was previously convicted—are controlled sub-
       stance oﬀenses under § 4B1.2(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines.
       United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th Cir. 2014). Beach
       was, therefore, correctly designated as a career oﬀender.
USCA11 Case: 22-11720      Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 05/08/2023     Page: 9 of 9

       22-11720               Opinion of the Court                          9

               And second, even if that determination were error, Beach
       invited it when he conceded at sentencing that he, indeed, qualiﬁed
       as a career oﬀender. The invited-error doctrine is the cardinal rule
       of appellate review that a party may not challenge a ruling or other
       trial proceeding that he invited. United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154,
       1157 (11th Cir. 2006). The doctrine’s rationale is the commonsense
       view that when a party invited the sentencing court to commit er-
       ror, he “cannot later cry foul on appeal”; no litigant should beneﬁt
       from introducing error in the district court hoping to create
       grounds for appeal. United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300, 1306
       (11th Cir. 2009). The doctrine applies when a defendant induced
       the district court’s error or expressly agreed that the district court
       should make the erroneous ruling. United States v. Feldman, 931 F.3d
       1245, 1260 (11th Cir. 2019).
               In United States v. Haynes, we held that a defendant had in-
       vited the very error that he contested on appeal—that he was im-
       permissibly sentenced as a career oﬀender—when he requested a
       sentence that “incorporated the career-oﬀender enhancement.”
       764 F.3d 1304, 1310 (11th Cir. 2014). Beach’s concession that he was
       a career oﬀender amounts to the same invitation of error.
               AFFIRMED.