[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
June 15, 2005
No. 04-13169
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-00042-CR-5-MCR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLARD TIMOTHY CARROLL,
a.k.a. Timmy,
a.k.a. Goose,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 15, 2005)
Before CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and FORRESTER *, District Judge.
*
Honorable J. Owen Forrester, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal from his conviction following a guilty plea, Willard Timothy
Carroll contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We
need not decide whether the area in question was part of the curtilage of the
dwelling. Even if it was, as the district court explained in its March 18, 2004 order
denying the motion to suppress, Special Agent Ducote did not violate Carroll’s
reasonable expectation of privacy by approaching the front door of the dwelling in
an attempt to speak with him. Once there, it was entirely reasonable for the agent
to proceed around to the back door as the sign on the front door directed visitors to
do. When he got around back, the items that were later described in the affidavit
supporting the search warrant were in plain view.
Carroll also contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion
to withdraw his guilty plea, because the district court did not explain adequately
during the plea colloquy that Carroll faced a mandatory life sentence. We review
the decision of the district court for abuse of discretion. United States v. Freixas,
332 F.3d 1314, 1316 (11th Cir. 2003). During the plea colloquy, the district court
informed Carroll that the government was seeking a sentence enhancement because
of Carroll’s previous convictions. The Court explained and Carroll acknowledged
that the enhancement would increase Carroll’s sentence to life. Carroll then
2
admitted to his previous convictions. Carroll’s counsel stated that a five-year
mandatory sentence for a firearms violation essentially was irrelevant, because the
mandatory life sentence for methamphetamine Carroll faced outweighed it. The
record shows that the district court adequately informed Carroll of the mandatory
life sentence Carroll faced.
Carroll alleges that the district court confused him by mentioning the
possibility of gain time and supervised release, which suggested that he might
receive a lesser sentence than life imprisonment. The district court was correct in
advising Carroll of those possibilities because it had yet to determine whether the
government could establish the enhancements, nor had the court determined that it
would not depart downward. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it
denied Carroll’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
AFFIRMED.
3