UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4976
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESUS MANZO-APARICIO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:09-
cr-00019-RWT-1)
Submitted: March 28, 2011 Decided: April 1, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan A. Gladstone, LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN GLADSTONE,
Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Mara Zusman Greenberg, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Manzo-Aparicio pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to unauthorized reentry of a deported
alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The
district court sentenced Manzo-Aparicio to ninety-six months’
imprisonment followed by a three-year supervised release term.
Manzo-Aparicio timely appealed his conviction and sentence. The
Government filed a motion to dismiss based on the appeal waiver
provision in the plea agreement. We granted the motion as to
the sentence, but denied it as to the conviction.
On appeal, Manzo-Aparicio contends the district court
erred in failing to sufficiently investigate the effect of
prescribed medication taken the night before on his competence
to enter a guilty plea. Manzo-Aparicio asserts that his plea
was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because his mental
faculties were impaired by the effects of medication, which
impairment was compounded by language difficulties that were not
completely resolved by the translations provided by the
federally certified interpreter. Finding no error, we affirm.
Because Manzo-Aparicio did not move in the district
court to withdraw his guilty plea, our review is for plain
error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.
2002). To establish plain error, Manzo-Aparicio “must show:
(1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error
2
affects substantial rights.” United States v. Massenburg, 564
F.3d 337, 342-46 (4th Cir. 2009). The decision to correct the
error lies within our discretion, and we exercise that
discretion only if the error seriously affects the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at
343 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Prior to accepting a defendant’s guilty plea, the
district court has the responsibility to determine that the
defendant is competent to enter the plea. United States v.
Damon, 191 F.3d 561, 564 (4th Cir. 1999). Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11 requires the court to personally inform
the defendant of, and ensure he understands, the possible
consequences of pleading guilty and the nature of the charges he
is facing. Id. When a response in a plea colloquy “raises
questions about the defendant’s state of mind, the court must
broaden its inquiry to satisfy itself that the plea is being
made knowingly and voluntarily.” Id. at 565. With a medicated
defendant, a court should ascertain the effect, if any, of the
medication on his ability to enter a knowing and voluntary plea.
Id.
In the present case, a federally certified translator
translated the plea agreement, factual stipulations, and the
plea proceeding. Once Manzo-Aparicio expressed difficulty in
understanding the proceedings as a result of language barriers
3
and/or medication, the district court meaningfully inquired into
the matter, assuring that Manzo-Aparicio completely understood
the proceedings and that neither language barriers nor
medication affected his ability to make a voluntary plea and to
understand the consequences.
Accordingly, because the district court did not err in
concluding that Manzo-Aparicio’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered and supported by an adequate factual basis,
we affirm Manzo-Aparicio’s conviction. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
expressed in the materials before the court, and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4