[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAR 15, 2007
No. 06-11127 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00097-CR-3-LAC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 15, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Antonio Vargas appeals his conviction, after his guilty plea, for
conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or
more of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), 846. Vargas argues
that the district court failed to adequately inform him of the nature of the charge
and, but for that failure, he would not have pleaded guilty. We affirm.
Plea agreements are governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
Because Vargas failed to raise any objections under Rule 11 at his change-of-plea
hearing, we review the matter only for plain error. United States v. Moriarty, 429
F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005). Plain error exists when there is (1) error, (2) that
is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. Id. A defendant who argues that a
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, 124 S. Ct. 2333, 2340 (2004).
Vargas has failed to establish that the district court committed plain error.
When a district court accepts a guilty plea, it must ensure that a defendant: (1)
enters the plea free from coercion; (2) understands the nature of the charges; and
(3) understands the consequences of the plea. Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1019. Vargas
argues that the district court did not ensure that he understood the nature of the
charges.
This argument fails. Vargas expressed confusion at only one point during
2
his sentencing hearing. At the hearing, the government recounted the details of
Vargas’s involvement in the drug conspiracy, including Vargas’s agreement to
deliver cocaine to Rory Reedy and then transport the payment for that cocaine back
to California. When the government finished, Vargas objected that he “never
talked to [Reedy] like you said right now.” Later dialogue revealed that Vargas
mistakenly believed the government had alleged that Vargas, upon making a
controlled delivery to Reedy after his arrest, told Reedy he would transport the
payment for him. The government clarified that it meant Vargas had agreed,
before his arrest, to deliver drugs to Reedy and transport the payment. Vargas then
responded, “That makes sense for me. Thanks.” Vargas then admitted that those
facts were true.
Vargas also stated that he fully discussed the facts with his attorney, and
Vargas’s attorney stated that he had explained the elements of conspiracy to
Vargas. Vargas acknowledged that he had made a big mistake and said he wanted
to pay for it. The record does not suggest either that Vargas did not understand the
charges or that he would have changed his plea had the district court explained the
charges to him. The district court did not plainly err.
AFFIRMED.
3