USCA11 Case: 20-10685 Date Filed: 02/17/2021 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10685
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00077-LMM-RGV-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JORGE MENDOZA-PEREZ,
a.k.a. Rojo,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 17, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR and BRASHER, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-10685 Date Filed: 02/17/2021 Page: 2 of 4
Jorge Mendoza-Perez appeals his conviction and sentence of 132 months of
imprisonment for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute
methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A). Perez challenges, for the first
time, the validity of his guilty plea. Perez also challenges the denial of a two-level
reduction for minor role under the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm in part and
dismiss in part.
Because Perez failed to move to withdraw his plea, our review is for plain
error. See United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2014). That
standard requires Perez to prove an error that is plain and that affects his
substantial rights. See id.
The district court did not plainly err by accepting Perez’s plea of guilt.
During the plea colloquy, Perez stated that he had reviewed his case with counsel,
had knowingly and voluntarily entered into a written plea agreement with the
government, had not been induced or coerced to plead guilty, understood the
charges against him and the consequences of pleading guilty, and agreed with the
factual statement provided by the government. Perez stated that he received one
year of schooling in Mexico and had a limited ability to read or write in Spanish.
He acknowledged that he never had suffered from or undergone treatment for
mental or emotional illness and that he would likely be deported after completing
his sentence. Perez also stated that he understood the sentencing range he faced,
2
USCA11 Case: 20-10685 Date Filed: 02/17/2021 Page: 3 of 4
that the district court would select his sentence, and that he was “giving up [his]
rights to appeal in almost all circumstances,” including the “right to appeal [his]
sentence” “even if it [was] wrong or [he was] unhappy with it.” The district court
complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by informing Perez of his
rights and ensuring that he understood what rights he was forfeiting by pleading
guilty. See Rodriguez, 751 F.3d at 1254. Based on this record, Perez cannot
overcome the strong presumption that he entered his plea of guilty knowingly and
voluntarily. See United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir. 1994)
(“There is a strong presumption that the statements made during the [plea]
colloquy are true.”).
Perez argues that the district court erred by denying him a two-level
reduction for a minor role under section 3B1.2(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines, but
his argument is barred by the appeal waiver in his plea agreement. Perez waived
the right to appeal his sentence unless there was an “upward departure or upward
variance above the sentencing guideline range as calculated by the District Court,”
his “counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance,” or “the Government
initiate[d] a direct appeal of the sentence imposed . . . .” Perez acknowledged that
he was “giving up most of [his] right[s] to appeal [his] sentence” during the plea
colloquy. Perez knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence.
3
USCA11 Case: 20-10685 Date Filed: 02/17/2021 Page: 4 of 4
See United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020). We dismiss the
appeal of this issue.
We AFFIRM Perez’s conviction and DISMISS the appeal of his sentence.
4