IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 21, 2008
No. 07-50536 Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MOHAMMAD ARAMI, also known as “Mo”
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PRADO, Circuit Judge:
In this appeal, we decide whether a defendant may withdraw his guilty
plea before the district court formally accepts that plea. We hold that the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure afford a defendant that right.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case stems from the investigation of a prostitution enterprise
involving illegal aliens in Austin, Texas. Police executed a search warrant at a
brothel and found two male illegal aliens acting as “house managers” and two
female illegal aliens working as prostitutes. Based on that discovery, police
executed additional search warrants at brothels in Austin, Dallas, and
Oklahoma City. During the execution of the subsequent search warrant in
No. 07-50536
Austin, police learned that Defendant-Appellant Mohammad Arami (“Arami”)
was the actual owner of the property used for the brothel. The lease agreement
required co-defendant Juan Balderas-Orosco (“Balderas-Orosco”), who ran the
brothel, to pay Arami a monthly rent of $2,000. This was apparently an inflated
rent amount for the area, which the government alleges Arami charged because
he knew that Balderas-Orosco was running a brothel at the property. The
government also alleges that Balderas-Orosco allowed Arami free “visits” with
the prostitutes. Arami’s other involvement in the prostitution enterprise
stemmed from Arami’s employees at his automotive shop. These employees
allegedly drove a van to transport the prostitutes from the airport and bus
station to the brothel.
The government presented the case to a grand jury, which returned a five-
count indictment against Arami, charging him with transportation for
prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (count one), coercion and enticement
for prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (count two), conspiracy to
smuggle, transport, and harbor illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324
(count three), importation of aliens for immoral purposes in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1328 (count four), and conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (count five). The government offered to drop counts one
through four if Arami would plead guilty to count five. Arami agreed. He then
consented to having his Rule 11 plea hearing and entering his plea before a
magistrate judge. On February 9, 2007, Arami pleaded guilty in front of a
magistrate judge to count five. The magistrate judge “recommend[ed] the
District Court accept the guilty plea and, after reviewing the presentence
investigation report, enter a Final Judgment of guilty against the defendant.”
On April 5, 2007, Arami filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, asserting
his innocence and stating that the allegations contained in the factual basis were
incorrect. The district court held a hearing on that motion the next day and
2
No. 07-50536
denied Arami’s request. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation on April 13, 2007, accepting Arami’s guilty plea on that
date. The court sentenced Arami to twenty-seven months’ imprisonment, three
years of supervised release, a $64,000 fine, and a $100 special assessment.
Arami appeals, asserting that the district court should have allowed him to
withdraw his guilty plea.
II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as the district
court entered a final judgment denying Arami’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea
and sentencing him.
Although Arami raises three issues on appeal, we dispose of this case by
addressing only his contention that he had an absolute right to withdraw his
guilty plea. Arami argues that the district court violated Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(d)(1), which allows a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea
before the court accepts the plea “for any reason or no reason.” FED. R. CRIM. P.
11(d)(1). Because Arami raises this argument for the first time on appeal, we
apply a plain error standard of review. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55,
59 (2002).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Rule 11(d)(1)
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d) provides, “A defendant may
withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere: (1) before the court accepts the
plea, for any reason or no reason . . . .” FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d). Therefore,
“[u]nder Rule 11(d)(1) . . . the district court has no discretion to deny a
pre-acceptance withdrawal of a guilty plea.” United States v. Jones, 472 F.3d
905, 908 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Before the 2002 amendments to the Rules, there was
no explicit provision governing a defendant’s withdrawal of a plea before the
court accepted it. See United States v. Lopez, 385 F.3d 245, 250 n.8 (2d Cir.
3
No. 07-50536
2004). Rule 11(d)(1) now allows withdrawal as a matter of right. Id. Once the
court accepts the defendant’s plea, however, the defendant may withdraw that
plea before sentencing only if the court rejects a plea agreement under Rule
11(c)(5) or if “the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the
withdrawal.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d)(2). A defendant may not have a guilty plea
set aside after the court has imposed a sentence except on direct appeal or
collateral attack. FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(e).
We have not previously had the occasion to expound upon the meaning of
Rule 11(d)(1). The most analogous case is an unpublished decision from the
Eighth Circuit. See United States v. Lozano, 63 F. App’x 962 (8th Cir. 2003) (per
curiam). There, the defendant appeared before a magistrate judge and pleaded
guilty to a drug charge. Id. at 962. The magistrate judge issued a report
recommending that the district court accept the defendant’s guilty plea. Id.
Thirteen days later, before the district court accepted the guilty plea or imposed
a sentence, the defendant moved to withdraw his plea. Id. The court denied the
defendant’s motion. Id. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit noted that the district
court improperly considered the defendant’s request to withdraw his plea under
the “fair and just reason” standard of Rule 11(d)(2), because the district court
had not formally accepted the defendant’s plea. Id. at 963. The court reversed,
ruling that the defendant had an absolute right to withdraw his plea under Rule
11(d)(1), and remanded the case to allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty
plea and proceed to trial. Id.
The Eighth Circuit also described the absolute nature of Rule 11(d)(1) in
United States v. Head, 340 F.3d 628, 630 (8th Cir. 2003). There, the defendant
pleaded guilty to aggravated assault but sought to withdraw his plea before
sentencing. Id. The court found that the district court had not accepted the
defendant’s guilty plea at his plea hearing. Id. The court held that, absent
explicit language or an implicit acceptance of the defendant’s guilty plea by the
4
No. 07-50536
district court, the defendant had retained an absolute right to withdraw his plea.
Id. But see id. at 632 (Ericksen, J., dissenting) (“Short of uttering the magic
words, ‘I accept your plea of guilty,’ the district court could have done nothing
more to make it clear that it was accepting [the defendant’s] plea.”).1
As this discussion demonstrates, Rule 11(d)(1) is an absolute rule: a
defendant has an absolute right to withdraw his or her guilty plea before the
court accepts it. Cf. United States v. Stephens, 489 F.3d 647, 654 (5th Cir. 2007)
(“Following the court’s acceptance of his guilty plea, Turner did not have an
absolute right to withdraw that plea,” thereby implying that the defendant had
an absolute right to withdraw the plea pre-acceptance). Here, the record
reveals—and the government concedes—that the district court did not accept
Arami’s plea until eight days after he submitted his motion to withdraw. Cf.
United States v. Welker, 103 F. App’x 72, 73 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)
(reversing the district court’s decision denying the defendant’s withdrawal
request because “[t]he government conceded error on this issue, recognizing that
the district court should have permitted Mr. Welker to withdraw his guilty plea”
based on the “plain meaning of [Rule 11(d)(1)]”). Under the clear language of
1
The Fourth Circuit has created a bright-line test for determining when a district court
has accepted a guilty plea, ruling that “once the district court has satisfied Rule 11’s colloquy
requirement, there is a presumption that the court has accepted the defendant’s guilty plea.”
United States v. Battle, 499 F.3d 315, 321 (4th Cir. 2007). In a different case, the Fourth
Circuit held that a magistrate judge may accept a guilty plea under the “additional duties”
residual clause in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), which sets forth a magistrate judge’s powers, so long
as a defendant consents to having the magistrate judge perform the plea hearing and accept
the plea. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 427, 430 (4th Cir. 2008). But see United
States v. Torres-Rosario, 447 F.3d 61, 67 (1st Cir. 2006) (“Technically, because the Rule 11
hearing was conducted by a magistrate judge, the plea acceptance occurred only when the
district judge adopted the magistrate’s recommendation.”). Putting the rules from Battle and
Benton together, the Fourth Circuit likely would rule that when a defendant consents to
having a magistrate judge perform the plea colloquy and accept the plea, the court has
accepted the plea for purposes of Rule 11(d)(1) once the magistrate judge completes the plea
colloquy. Regardless, here, both parties concede that Arami did not consent to having the
magistrate judge accept his guilty plea, so we leave for another day the questions of whether
an acceptance occurs when the court completes the plea colloquy and whether a defendant can
consent to having a magistrate judge accept a guilty plea.
5
No. 07-50536
Rule 11(d)(1), Arami had an absolute right to withdraw his plea, and the district
court erred in denying Arami’s request to do so.
B. Plain Error
Because Arami did not raise any argument involving Rule 11(d)(1) before
the district court, this court must review the district court’s decision for plain
error. See Vonn, 535 U.S. at 59. There are four steps in this analysis. We must
initially determine “(1) whether the district court committed error; (2) whether
the error is ‘clear and obvious’; and (3) whether the error affects substantial
rights.” United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 242 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal
citations omitted). If these three conditions are present, we still cannot reverse
the conviction unless the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citing United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 732 (1993)).
Arami easily satisfies the first two prongs of the plain error test. First, as
noted above, the district court committed error under Rule 11(d)(1) by denying
Arami’s motion to withdraw before the court had accepted his plea. Second, this
error was “clear and obvious” because the plain language of Rule 11(d)(1) is
unambiguous, as it clearly gives defendants an absolute right to withdraw a plea
before the district court accepts it. See Welker, 103 F. App’x at 73 (mentioning
the “plain meaning of the applicable rule”).
Next, Arami must establish that the error affected his “substantial rights.”
Olano, 507 U.S. at 734. In particular, he must demonstrate that “the probability
of a different result is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the
proceeding.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004)
(internal quotation marks omitted). The clear language of Rule 11(d)(1), which
provides a defendant with an unqualified right to withdraw a guilty plea “for any
reason or no reason,” indicates that any error in the court’s failure to consider
the rule would affect a defendant’s substantial rights. Without the error, Arami
6
No. 07-50536
would have been able to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial, thereby
demonstrating a “probability of a different result” that undermines confidence
in his plea. See id. Indeed, given the unqualified nature of the right to
withdraw before the court accepts the plea, it is difficult to discern any situation
where an error in failing to apply Rule 11(d)(1) would not affect a defendant’s
substantial rights.
The government argues that the error did not affect Arami’s substantial
rights because he “waived” his ability to withdraw his plea by failing to object to
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within ten days. However,
there is nothing in the record to suggest that Arami intentionally relinquished
or abandoned his right to withdraw his plea under Rule 11(d)(1) or that he knew
of his right to withdraw before the district court accepted his plea, so the waiver
doctrine is inapplicable. See United States v. Arivso-Mata, 442 F.3d 382, 384
(5th Cir. 2006) (noting that the waiver doctrine applies only when a defendant
knows of a particular right and consciously chooses to forego it). Additionally,
Arami’s failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
simply means that this court employs the plain error standard of review, not
that Arami cannot assert his right to withdraw his plea at all. See Starns v.
Andrews, 524 F.3d 612, 617 (5th Cir. 2008) (stating that “if a party did not object
to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, that party may not attack
the proposed factual findings or legal conclusions except upon the grounds of
plain error”). In sum, Arami meets his burden of showing that the court’s error
in failing to apply Rule 11(d)(1) affected his substantial rights because the court
should have allowed Arami to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial,
thereby changing the result of the proceeding.
The final question is whether the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 732
(internal quotation marks omitted). Arami argues that denying him his right to
7
No. 07-50536
have a jury determine his guilt satisfies this test. See, e.g., United States v.
Bradley, 455 F.3d 453, 464 (4th Cir. 2006) (“The fact is, the jury rendered no
verdict in this case; there has been no ‘fair and reliable determination’ of the
Defendants’ guilt.”). We agree. Although the government suggests that the
district court discounted Arami’s credibility when he asserted his innocence, this
fact does not support a conclusion that a court can deprive a defendant of his
right under Rule 11(d)(1) to withdraw a guilty plea and proceed to trial if the
court has not yet accepted the plea. Cf. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279
(1993) (“[T]o hypothesize a guilty verdict that was never in fact rendered—no
matter how inescapable the findings to support that verdict might be—would
violate the jury-trial guarantee.”). Rule 11(d)(1) sets out an absolute rule
allowing a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before the court accepts it. It
follows that depriving a defendant of his unconditional right under Rule 11(d)(1)
would affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings
because the defendant would lose his right to take his case before a jury.
If a district court wishes to avoid a similar situation in the future—where
a defendant pleads guilty in front of a magistrate judge and then later seeks to
withdraw the plea before the court accepts it—the district court simply should
accept the plea more promptly. In fact, the court can accept the plea before it
reviews the plea agreement and imposes a sentence. See United States v. Hyde,
520 U.S. 670, 677-78 (1997) (distinguishing a plea from a plea agreement);
Jones, 472 F.3d at 909 (same). But a defendant does not relinquish his right to
have a jury determine his guilt or innocence until the court actually accepts the
defendant’s guilty plea.
IV. CONCLUSION
At oral argument, Arami’s counsel recognized the huge risk Arami is
taking in seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. Arami has served almost half of
8
No. 07-50536
his prison sentence under his plea agreement, and by withdrawing his plea and
proceeding to trial on all five counts, he risks the possibility of incurring a much
longer jail sentence if he is convicted. Nevertheless, because the district court
had not accepted Arami’s plea before he sought to withdraw it, Rule 11(d)(1)
gives Arami this choice. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the district
court and REMAND for Arami to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
9