[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-15372 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar OCTOBER 4, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cr-00006-CAR-CHW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID DIETZ,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(October 4, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
David Dietz appeals his convictions for assault on a federal officer, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), (b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, resulting from his plea of
guilty. Dietz argues that the district court violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure by failing to address the second of the rule’s core concerns
when it accepted his plea. Specifically, Dietz contends that the court plainly erred
by failing to establish at the plea colloquy that he understood the nature and the
elements of the charges to which he was pleading guilty. Although Dietz stated he
understood and was not disputing the charges against him, he argues that, because
the court failed to elicit which facts he disputed in the prosecutor’s statement of
the facts, the court failed to ensure that he understood the nature and elements of
the charges against him. After review,1 we affirm Dietz’s judgment and
conviction.
The second core concern of Rule 11 requires that, before a court accepts a
defendant’s guilty plea, “it must inform the defendant of, and determine that the
defendant understands, . . . the nature of each charge to which the defendant is
1
When a defendant fails to object to a Rule 11 violation in the district court, we review
the alleged violation for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). If we
find plain error, the defendant must also “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 (2004).
2
pleading guilty.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(G); see also United States v. Jones,
143 F.3d 1417, 1418-19 (11th Cir. 1998). “Whether the court has adequately
informed the defendant of the offense’s nature turns on a variety of factors,
including the complexity of the offense and the defendant’s intelligence and
education.” United States v. Telemaque, 244 F.3d 1247, 1249 (11th Cir. 2001).
Rule 11 does not specify that each element of the charge must be listed, and “there
is no one mechanical way or precise juncture that a district court is required to
inform the defendant of the nature of the charges in the Rule 11 colloquy.” United
States v. Wiggins, 131 F.3d 1440, 1442-43 (11th Cir. 1997).
In this case, the court did not specifically address the elements of the
offense before accepting Dietz’s guilty plea. The question, therefore, is whether
the court adequately established that the defendant understood the nature of these
charges in light of this omission.
The court adequately ensured that Dietz understood the nature of the
charges. Dietz is a sophisticated and intelligent defendant with a bachelor’s
degree in criminal justice. The charges against him were relatively simple and the
elements of the offense were laid out in the indictment. During the plea colloquy,
the court asked whether Dietz had reviewed and discussed the indictment with his
attorney and whether Dietz understood the indictment and charges against him.
3
Dietz answered both questions affirmatively. When the prosecution laid out the
facts underlying the charges, Dietz disputed some of the details, but unequivocally
admitted that he was guilty of the crimes of assault on the federal officers.
Thereafter, the court made a factual finding that Dietz understood the nature of the
charges against him and that the plea was informed.
Dietz’s rights were not substantially affected by the court’s failure to
specifically discuss the elements and nature of the offense. See Gordon v. United
States, 518 F.3d 1291, 1297-99. Moreover, even if the district court failed to
adequately explain the nature of the offense, Dietz has not offered any evidence,
or even argued, that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have
entered the plea if not for the alleged error. Therefore, he has failed to meet his
burden of showing plain error.
AFFIRMED.
4