[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-15535 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 12, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-00477-CR-CC-8-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE MAGANA BARAJAS,
a.k.a. Sope,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(June 12, 2009)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Barajas appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine base and at least 500 grams of
methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. § 846. Barajas argues for the first time on appeal
that the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
We affirm.
When a defendant fails to raise an objection in the district court, we review
for plain error. United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005)
(per curiam). To satisfy that standard, a defendant must establish an error that is
plain and affects his substantial rights. Id. When he has pleaded guilty, the
defendant “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).
There was no plain error in Barajas’s guilty plea. Barajas argues that the
district court was required to inform him that he had agreed not to request a
sentence below the guideline range. When it accepts a plea of guilt, the district
court must comply with Rule 11 and address three “core principles” to “ensur[e]
that [the] defendant (1) enters his guilty plea free from coercion, (2) understands
the nature of the charges, and (3) understands the consequences of his plea.”
Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1019 (citing United States v. Jones, 143 F.3d 1417, 1418–19
(11th Cir. 1998)). The district court satisfied these requirements when it
2
determined that Barajas had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a trial
and discussed with Barajas the applicable guideline range and the sentencing
factors. See United States v. Mosley, 173 F.3d 1318, 1328 (11th Cir. 1999).
Barajas cannot establish that any error affected his substantial rights because he
was permitted to request a downward departure at his sentencing hearing, despite
the terms of his plea agreement. Barajas also has not alleged that, but for the error,
he would not have pleaded guilty.
Barajas’s conviction is AFFIRMED.
3