[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
September 5, 2008
No. 07-11174 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-20617-CR-PCH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EMMANUEL DELOS-SANTOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 5, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (Count 1); possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 2); conspiracy to carry and possess a
firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(o) (Count 3); and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(I) (Count 4). The
district court sentenced appellant to prison terms totaling 120 months. He now
appeals, asking this court to invoke the plain error doctrine and hold that the
district court failed to find that his pleas of guilty were made knowingly and
intelligently.
Appellant argues that the district court’s plea colloquy with him was
inadequate in that his statements concerning his psychological history and the
medication he had been taking should have put the court on notice that it needed to
conduct a more searching inquiry into his competency to enter a plea.
Due process requires that a defendant enter a guilty plea knowingly and
voluntarily, because by pleading guilty, a defendant waives a number of his
constitutional rights. United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir.
2005). When accepting a guilty plea, a court must ensure that the three “core
concerns” of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are met: “(1) the
2
guilty plea must be free from coercion; (2) the defendant must understand the
nature of the charges; and (3) the defendant must know and understand the
consequences of his guilty plea.” United States v. Mosley, 173 F.3d 1318, 1322
(11th Cir. 1999). To satisfy these concerns, the district court must “address the
defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that
the defendant understands, the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered and
the potential consequences of that plea.” United States v. Lewis, 115 F.3d 1531,
1535 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The rule imposes
upon a district court “the obligation and responsibility to conduct a searching
inquiry into the voluntariness of a defendant’s guilty plea.” United States v.
Siegel, 102 F.3d 477, 481 (11th Cir. 1996).
Since nothing in the record indicates that appellant was suffering from a
mental health condition that rendered him incompetent to enter a guilty plea, and
since his statements during the Rule 11 plea colloquy indicate that he understood
the nature of the charges and consequences he was facing, the district court did not
err, much less commit plain error, in finding that appellant pled guilty to the
charges knowingly and intelligently.
AFFIRMED.
3