Court Opinion

ID: 9392760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-06 00:00:38.939474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:48.575897
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10989       Document: 00516740409             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/05/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                      United States Court of Appeals
                                    ____________                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                     FILED
                                     No. 22-10989                                 May 5, 2023
                                   Summary Calendar
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                   ____________
                                                                                     Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Joaquin Salinas,

                                             Defendant—Appellant.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:21-CR-447-1
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Joaquin Salinas pled guilty on March 7, 2022, to conspiring to possess
   methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
   Before sentencing, Salinas made an off-the-record statement suggesting that
   he wished to withdraw his plea; however no corresponding motion was filed.

          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10989      Document: 00516740409           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                     No. 22-10989

   At his next hearing Salinas stated he did want to follow through with his plea
   and that he was satisfied with his attorney.
          “[A] defendant who seeks reversal of his conviction after a guilty plea,
   on the ground that the district court committed plain error under Rule 11,
   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
   (2004). To demonstrate reversible plain error generally, Salinas must show
   (1) an error (2) that is “clear or obvious” and (3) that affects his “substantial
   rights.” Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); see also United
   States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 315 & n.16 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (noting
   that plain error review applies to alleged deficiencies in plea colloquies). If
   these showings are made, this court has discretion to correct the error if it
   seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
   proceedings. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. A “clear or obvious” error is one not
   subject to reasonable dispute. Id.
          The record reflects that Salinas stated in open court that he was
   satisfied with his plea, and before that hearing he did not file a motion to
   withdraw his plea, though he had opportunity and was represented by
   counsel. He does not demonstrate a “‘fair and just reason’ for seeking
   withdraw.” United States v. Strother, 977 F.3d 438, 443 (5th Cir. 2020)
   (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B)).              To the extent Salinas is
   attempting to argue that the district court should have reopened the
   rearraignment hearing based on his off-record comments, his argument is
   unavailing. His statements to the district court at sentencing did nothing to
   call into question the presumption of verity that attaches to the statements
   he made at rearraignment indicating that his plea was knowing and voluntary.
   See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977).
          Accordingly, we find no error, plain or otherwise. AFFIRMED.

                                              2