Court Opinion

ID: 9492821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:51:24.233636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:30.714737
License: Public Domain

LOKEN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the court. In addition, on the issue that draws a dissent from Judge Arnold — Prado’s contention that he is entitled to replead because the district court violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by failing to advise him of the possible effects of supervised release — I conclude there is an additional reason to affirm.
This is not a direct appeal. It is a § 2255 proceeding, commenced five years after sentencing, in which relief in the nature of a direct appeal was granted because trial counsel neglected to advise Prado of his right to appeal. In United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 60 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979), a unanimous Court held that a collateral attack under § 2255 may not be predicated on a violation of Rule 11 unless the violation “resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice or in a proceeding inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.” As the court’s harmless error discussion demonstrates, there was no miscarriage of justice or fundamentally unfair procedure when Prado pleaded guilty and was subsequently sentenced. “[T]he concern with finality served by the limitation on collateral attack has special force with respect to convictions based on guilty pleas.” Timmreck, 441 U.S. at 784, 99 S.Ct. 2085. Therefore, Prado is not entitled to relief from his guilty plea under United States v. Osment, 13 F.3d 1240 (8th Cir.1994), a case decided some three years after he knowingly and voluntarily entered that plea.