Court Opinion

ID: 9941690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 19:01:44.359857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:54.191925
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50102         Document: 00517066383             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/16/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50102
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               February 16, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Vidal Gonzalez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-622-2
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Vidal Gonzalez appeals his conviction for transportation of illegal
   aliens. He asserts that the magistrate judge (MJ) failed to properly ensure he
   understood the nature of the charge and that there was an insufficient factual
   basis for his guilty plea.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50102      Document: 00517066383          Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                    No. 23-50102

          Because Gonzalez did not object to any Federal Rule of Criminal
   Procedure 11 errors in the district court, our review is for plain error. See
   United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). To establish plain error,
   Gonzalez must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects
   his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
   This court will find a violation of Gonzalez’s substantial rights under Rule 11
   only if he shows “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). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct
   the error but only if it “‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public
   reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135 (alteration in
   original) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993)).
          Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(G), the district
   court must “inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant
   understands . . . the nature of each charge to which the defendant is
   pleading.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(G). The record reflects that the MJ
   sufficiently confirmed Gonzalez’s understanding of the charge. See United
   States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 559 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Lujano-
   Perez, 274 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2001). Because a reasonable person would
   not doubt that Gonzalez understood the charge, he has not shown any clear
   or obvious error in regard to compliance with Rule 11(b)(1)(G). See Puckett,
   556 U.S. at 135; Reyes, 300 F.3d at 559.
          Turning to Gonzalez’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(3)
   argument, the facts contained in the factual basis underlying Gonzalez’s
   guilty plea and the presentence report establish that Gonzalez sought to
   further the illegal aliens’ presence in the United States. Specifically,
   Gonzalez and his co-defendant were traveling in tandem after picking up the
   illegal aliens at the border; Gonzalez’s vehicle was rented and contained
   heavily tinted windows; prior to being pulled over, Gonzalez was driving

                                          2
Case: 23-50102      Document: 00517066383          Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                    No. 23-50102

   away from the border; and he provided no logical explanation as to how he
   knew his passengers. On these facts, Gonzalez has not shown a clear or
   obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3