United States v. David Wayne Monroe

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 24, 2003
No. 02-12918 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 00-14076-CR-NCR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID WAYNE MONROE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________

(December 24, 2003)

Before HULL, MARCUS and STAHL*, Circuit Judges.

HULL, Circuit Judge:

After entering a guilty plea, David Wayne Monroe appeals his conviction

for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

*
Honorable Norman H. Stahl, United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by
designation.
§ 841(a)(1). For the first time on appeal, Monroe contends that the district court

committed plain error during his Rule 11 plea colloquy by not explicitly informing

him of his right against compelled self-incrimination. After review, we affirm.

I. FACTS

On April 3, 2001, Monroe pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute

an amount greater than five grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1). At the change-of-plea hearing, the district court read the charged

offense from the indictment in full. The district court confirmed that Monroe had

discussed the case thoroughly with his attorney and was satisfied with his

attorney’s advice.

The district court explained that it had to be satisfied that Monroe in fact

had committed the crime charged and that he understood the rights that he waived

by entering his guilty plea. The district court informed Monroe of those rights,

stating: (1) that he did not have to plead guilty and that he may maintain his plea

of not guilty and proceed to trial; (2) that he had a right to have a lawyer with him

at all stages of the proceedings, including trial; (3) that if he went to trial, he had a

right to have a jury of twelve persons and a right for the jury to determine whether

the government had proved beyond a reasonable doubt the charge against him; and

2
(4) that at trial he had the right to call witnesses on his own behalf and the right to

confront and cross-examine any government witness who testified against him.

The district court informed Monroe about the essential elements of the drug

offense charged in the indictment, the maximum and minimum sentences for that

crime, and the possible fines. The court explained that by entering a guilty plea,

Monroe would give up his right to a jury trial, and that if the court accepted the

guilty plea, there would not be a trial. The court confirmed that Monroe had

discussed the plea agreement thoroughly with his attorney and that he fully

understood the consequences of his guilty plea.

During the plea colloquy, the district court also determined that a factual

basis existed for Monroe’s guilty plea. The government proffered that it would

present evidence of still photographs and tapes showing Monroe selling 37.9

grams of cocaine base for $1600 to a confidential informant (“CI”). The

government proffered that its evidence would show that the CI made a telephone

call to Monroe and negotiated the purchase of cocaine base, commonly known as

crack cocaine. Monroe then drove to the designated location, and the CI gave him

$1600 in exchange for the crack cocaine. Monroe took the money, advised the CI

that he had more cocaine to sell, and departed. The cocaine base that Monroe sold

to the CI was taken to, and tested by, a forensic chemist, and it was in fact 37.9

3
grams of cocaine base or crack cocaine. Monroe admitted that the government’s

proffer was accurate as to what occurred.1

After determining that Monroe was acting voluntarily and understood his

rights and the consequences of his guilty plea, the district court accepted Monroe’s

guilty plea. During the hearing, Monroe never objected to the plea colloquy.

Subsequently, the district court sentenced Monroe to 188 months’ imprisonment.

During sentencing, Monroe never objected to the earlier plea colloquy. Monroe

also never filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Instead, for the first time on appeal, Monroe objects to the plea colloquy and

contends that the district court erred under Rule 11 by not expressly informing him

of his right against compelled self-incrimination. Monroe requests that his

conviction and sentence be vacated based on that Rule 11 error.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a defendant, such as Monroe, fails to object to a Rule 11 violation in

the district court, this Court reviews under the plain-error analysis. United States

v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1046, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002)

1
During the plea colloquy, the district court also inquired as to Monroe’s educational
background. Monroe replied that he had attended, but not graduated from, college.

4
(“hold[ing] that a silent defendant has the burden to satisfy the plain-error”

standard in Rule 11 error).

Under plain-error review, the defendant has the burden to show that “there

is (1) ‘error’ (2) that is ‘plain’ and (3) that ‘affect[s] substantial rights.’” United

States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1290 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting United

States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1776, 123 L.Ed.2d 508

(1993)). “If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its

discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error ‘seriously affect[s]

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. (quoting

Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 117 S. Ct. 1544, 1549, 137 L.Ed.2d

718 (1997)) (other internal quotation marks and citations omitted).2 Under plain-

error review, the silent defendant has the burden “to show the error plain,

prejudicial, and disreputable to the judicial system.” Vonn, 535 U.S. at 65, 122 S.

Ct. at 1050.

2
In certain Rule 11 appeals, defendants moved in the district court to withdraw guilty
pleas based on Rule 11 error, and thus, on appeal we reviewed for harmless error under Rule
11(h) and did not consider the fourth prong of plain-error review. See, e.g., United States v.
Jones, 143 F.3d 1417 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Siegel, 102 F.3d 477 (11th Cir. 1996);
United States v. Zickert, 955 F.2d 665 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hourihan, 936 F.2d 508,
511 (11th Cir. 1991). In this case, Monroe did not move to withdraw his plea in the district
court, and thus we review the Rule 11 issue here for plain error.

5
 Further, in the Rule 11 context, the “reviewing court may consult the whole

record when considering the effect of any error on substantial rights.” Vonn, 535

U.S. at 59, 122 S. Ct. at 1046.3

III. DISCUSSION

A. Existence of Plain Error

Our first inquiry is whether there was error that was plain. Monroe claims

that the district court committed plain error because it did not explicitly inform

him of his right against compelled self-incrimination.

At the time of Monroe’s guilty plea, Rule 11(c)(1)-(4) of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure provided that, before accepting a guilty plea, the district

3
Our precedent on whether the reviewing court may consult only the plea colloquy or the
whole record is inconsistent. Compare United States v. Quinones, 97 F.3d 473, 475 (11th Cir.
1996) (stating our analysis of Rule 11 error is conducted solely on the basis of Rule 11
proceedings); Hourihan, 936 F.2d at 511 (stating that “[t]he law is clear that on direct appeal the
harmless error analysis is conducted on the basis of Rule 11 proceedings”), with United States v.
Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F.3d 945, 951 (11th Cir. 2000) (finding plain error and stating that
“nothing in the record . . . indicates that the defendant knew he had these additional rights”);
United States v. Mosley, 173 F.3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 1999) (stating that because defendant
was in the midst of trial when he pled guilty, this Court reviews the “whole record, including
opening statements, witnesses’ testimonies, and the plea colloquy”); see also Jones, 143 F.3d at
1418 (concluding that failure to inform defendant of mandatory minimum sentence at plea
colloquy may be harmless error when written plea agreement referred to during plea colloquy
properly describes statutory mandatory minimum sentence); United States v. McCarty, 99 F.3d
383, 386-87 (11th Cir. 1996) (determining that failure to mention restitution at plea colloquy is
harmless error when defendant signs and acknowledges plea agreement informing defendant of
restitution). We need not reconcile this precedent because Vonn now expressly settles the
question, and courts may consider the whole record when considering whether Rule 11 error
occurred or prejudiced a defendant. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 74-75, 122 S. Ct. 1043,
1054-55, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002).

6
court must address the defendant personally in open court and must inform him of

the following matters and rights:

(1) the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory
minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible
penalty provided by law, including the effect of any special parole or
supervised release term, the fact that the court is required to consider
any applicable sentencing guidelines but may depart from those
guidelines under some circumstances, and, when applicable, that the
court may also order the defendant to make restitution to any victim of
the offense; and

(2) if the defendant is not represented by an attorney, that the defendant
has the right to be represented by an attorney at every stage of the
proceeding and, if necessary, one will be appointed to represent the
defendant; and

(3) that the defendant has the right to plead not guilty or to persist in that
plea if it has already been made, the right to be tried by a jury and at that
trial the right to the assistance of counsel, the right to confront and
cross-examine adverse witnesses, and the right against compelled self-
incrimination; and

(4) that if a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is accepted by the court
there will not be a further trial of any kind, so that by pleading guilty or
nolo contendere the defendant waives the right to a trial . . . .

7
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)-(4) (2001) (emphasis added).4 These rules are neither

precatory nor aspirational; they are mandatory and the district court is obliged to

tell the defendants in words or in substance the matters contained in Rule 11(c)(1)-

(4).

The record shows that the district court expressly referenced each item in

Rule 11(c)(1)-(4) except for “the right against compelled self-incrimination” in

Rule 11(c)(3). Monroe argues that the court’s failure to state expressly that he had

“the right against compelled self-incrimination” constitutes a clear Rule 11

violation and thus plain error.

In reply, the government emphasizes that the Advisory Committee Notes to

Rule 11 explain that “[t]he rule takes the position that the defendant’s right not to

incriminate himself is best explained in terms of his right to plead not guilty and to

persist in that plea if it has already been made.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 advisory

committee’s note. In other words, the Advisory Committee Notes counsel that

4
Because the change-of-plea hearing in this case occurred on April 3, 2001, we recite the
2001 version of Rule 11(c) which combined various rights in Rule 11(c)(3), including the right
against compelled self-incrimination. Effective December 1, 2002, the provision about the right
against compelled self-incrimination is now contained in Rule 11(b)(1)(E), which provides that
the district court must inform the defendant of:
the right at trial to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be protected
from compelled self-incrimination, to testify and present evidence, and to compel the
attendance of witnesses.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(E).

8
telling the defendant that he can continue to plead not guilty is, in effect, also

telling him that he is not required to admit guilt or to incriminate himself by

admitting guilt. Further, the United States Supreme Court has admonished, “In the

absence of a clear legislative mandate, the Advisory Committee Notes provide a

reliable source of insight into the meaning of a rule, especially when, as here, the

rule [Rule 11] was enacted precisely as the Advisory Committee proposed.”

Vonn, 535 U.S. at 64 n.6, 122 S. Ct. at 1049 n.6 (quoting Beech Aircraft Corp. v.

Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 165-66 n.9, 109 S. Ct. 439, 448 n.9, 102 L.Ed.2d 445

(1988)). In addition, this Court has stated that Rule 11 “does not say that a court’s

only means of compliance is to read the specified items in haec verba.” United

States v. Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F.3d 945, 950 (11th Cir. 2000). Instead, in Rule

11 proceedings, matters of substance, not form, are controlling. See United States

v. Stitzer, 785 F.2d 1506, 1513-14 (11th Cir. 1986); United States v. Bell, 776

F.2d 965, 971 (11th Cir. 1985).5

Turning to the Rule 11 colloquy with Monroe, the district court informed

Monroe, “I want you to know you don’t have to plead guilty. You may continue

5
Even prior to the incorporation of harmless-error review in subsection (h) of Rule 11 and
the application of plain-error review to Rule 11 in Vonn, the Supreme Court stated, “[m]atters of
reality, and not mere ritual, should be controlling.” McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459,
467 n.20, 89 S. Ct. 1166, 1171 n.20, 22 L.Ed.2d. 418 (1969) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted) (alteration in original).

9
in your plea of not guilty and go to trial.” Thus, the government argues that the

district court’s colloquy conforms to the Advisory Committee Notes’ suggestion

regarding the manner in which to inform the defendant of his right not to

incriminate himself. In light of the Advisory Committee Notes, the government

asserts that the district court’s colloquy suffices to advise Monroe of his right

against compelled self-incrimination. As a result, the government contends that

the district court’s failure to use the precise words of “right against compelled self-

incrimination” did not constitute error, much less plain error.

We agree with the government that the record does show that the district

court advised Monroe in great detail about his rights and that he would waive

them by entering a guilty plea to the drug charge. Further, the Advisory

Committee Notes do provide, as the government argues, that “the defendant’s right

not to incriminate himself is best explained in terms of his right to plead not guilty

and to persist in that plea.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 advisory committee’s note. In a

similar vein, the district court did advise Monroe that he did not have to plead

guilty and that he may maintain his not guilty plea and proceed to trial. Thus, in

light of the thorough nature of the overall colloquy, the Advisory Committee

Notes, and our own precedent that does not require in haec verba recitation, it is

arguable that there was no Rule 11 error in this case and that in any event, any

10
error was not plain. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S. Ct. at 1777 (describing

“plain” as synonymous with “clear” or “obvious”); United States v. Bejarano, 249

F.3d 1304, 1306 (11th Cir. 2001) (stating that “[p]lain error is clear or obvious”)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, we need not and do

not decide either of these two questions because it is absolutely clear in this record

that Monroe failed to carry his burden of establishing that any alleged error

affected or prejudiced his substantial rights or that any alleged error seriously

affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.

B. Plain-Error versus Harmless-Error Review

Before examining prongs three and four of plain-error review, we review

important distinctions between plain-error and harmless-error review, which were

expressly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the Rule 11 context in Vonn.

Plain-error review differs from harmless-error review in two important

respects. First, in plain-error review, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion

with respect to prejudice or the effect on substantial rights. See id. at 58-59, 122

S. Ct. at 1046 (discussing differences between plain-error and harmless-error

review); Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S. Ct.1770, 1778, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993);

United States v. Quinones, 97 F.3d 473, 475 (11th Cir. 1996) (same). In harmless-

error review, the government has the burden. See id.

11
 Second, while both plain-error and harmless-error review consider whether

a defendant's rights were substantially affected, plain-error review has the

additional requirement that an appellate court then must decide whether to

exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error. That discretion may be exercised

only if the error also "seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation

of judicial proceedings." Vonn, 535 U.S. at 63, 122 S. Ct. 1048 (applying Olano,

507 U.S. at 736, 113 S. Ct. at 1779 (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted) (alteration in original)); Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467, 117 S. Ct. at 1549

(same).

We also discuss Vonn in more detail because it informs our analysis in this

case. In Vonn, the district court failed to advise the defendant of his right to

counsel at trial, and the defendant raised this Rule 11 error for the first time on

appeal. 535 U.S. at 61, 122 S. Ct. at 1047. Nonetheless, the defendant in Vonn

stressed that Rule 11 contains a harmless-error standard of review in Rule 11(h),6

but does not contain a plain-error standard within Rule 11. Thus, the initial issue

6
In Vonn, the Supreme Court noted that Rule 11(h) is “the classic shorthand formulation
of the harmless-error standard,” which is also already incorporated in Rule 52(a). 535 U.S. at 63,
122 S. Ct. at 1049. At the time of Vonn’s sentencing in 1998, as well as at the time of Monroe’s
sentencing in 2001, Rule 11(h) provided that “[a]ny variance from the procedures required by
this rule which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h).
Currently, Rule 11(h) similarly states that “[a] variance from the requirements of this rule is
harmless error if it does not affect substantial rights.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h) (2003).

12
in Vonn was whether the plain-error standard contained in Rule 52(b) even

applied to Rule 11 violations. The defendant in Vonn claimed that “Rule 11(h)’s

specification of [only] harmless-error review shows an intent to exclude the plain-

error standard with which harmless error is paired in Rule 52.” 7 535 U.S. at 56,

122 S. Ct. at 1044.

Although Rule 11 contains only a harmless-error review provision in

subsection (h), the Supreme Court in Vonn expressly held that Rule 52(b)’s plain-

error review still applies to Rule 11 errors. 535 U.S. at 74, 122 S. Ct. at 1054.

After reviewing the history of Rules 11 and 52, the Supreme Court in Vonn

squarely held as to Rule 11 errors that “a silent defendant has the burden to satisfy

the plain-error rule and that a reviewing court may consult the whole record when

considering the effect of any error on substantial rights.” Id. at 59, 122 S. Ct. at

1046.8

7
At the time of Vonn’s sentencing in 1998 and Monroe’s sentencing in 2001, Rule 52
provided in full:
(a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not
affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.
(b) Plain Error. Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed
although they were not brought to the attention of the court.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 52. Currently, Rule 52(b) similarly states that “[a] plain error that affects
substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”
Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).
8
In Vonn, the Supreme Court concluded that plain-error review applied to the defendant’s
appeal and remanded for the circuit court to determine whether the defendant had met the burden
of satisfying the plain-error rule. 535 U.S. at 76, 122 S. Ct. at 1055.

13
 In rejecting the contention that Rule 11(h) impliedly eliminated plain-error

review, the Supreme Court further noted that subsection (h) was added to Rule 11

to deal with “a slip-up by the judge” in Rule 11 colloquies, stating as follows:

The Rule [11] has evolved over the course of 30 years from
general scheme to detailed plan, which now includes a provision
for dealing with a slip up by the judge in applying the Rule itself.
Subsection (h) reads that “[a]ny variance from the procedures
required by this rule which does not affect substantial rights shall
be disregarded.”

Vonn, 535 U.S. at 62, 122 S. Ct. at 1048 (emphasis added) (alteration in

original). The Supreme Court stressed that “one clearly expressed objective of

Rule 11(h) was to end the practice, then commonly followed, of reversing

automatically for any Rule 11 error.” Id. at 66, 122 S. Ct. at 1050.

In Vonn, the Supreme Court further explained that without plain-error

review, “a defendant could choose to say nothing about a judge’s plain lapse under

Rule 11 until the moment of taking a direct appeal, at which time the burden

would always fall on the Government to prove harmlessness.” Id. at 73, 122 S. Ct.

at 1054. Without plain-error review, “a defendant loses nothing by failing to

object to obvious Rule 11 error when it occurs.” Id. at 63, 122 S. Ct. at 1048. In

concluding that Rule 52(b)’s plain-error review applies to Rule 11 error, the

Supreme Court reaffirmed that “[w]hen an appellate court considers error that

14
qualifies as plain, the tables are turned on demonstrating the substantiality of any

effect on a defendant’s rights; the defendant who sat silent at trial has the burden

to show that his ‘substantial rights’ were affected.” Id. at 62-63, 122 S. Ct. at

1048 (emphasis added) (citing Olano, 507 U.S. at 734-35, 113 S. Ct. at 1778)).

C. Three Core Concerns of Rule 11

Even prior to Vonn, this Court has not automatically reversed a conviction

simply because a defendant has shown a Rule 11 error.9 Instead, this Court has

applied plain-error review in Rule 11 appeals and evaluated whether the defendant

has carried the burden to show that his rights were substantially affected by the

Rule 11 error, or what we have also sometimes called “prejudice.” 10

9
Vonn resolved a circuit split about whether plain-error review applied to Rule 11 errors.
535 U.S. at 61, 122 S. Ct. at 1048. Prior to Vonn, this circuit, along with the First, Sixth, and
Seventh circuits had applied plain-error review in Rule 11 cases. See Quinones, 97 F.3d at 475;
United States v. Gandia-Maysonet, 227 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir. 2000); United States v. Bashara, 27
F.3d 1174, 1178 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Cross, 57 F.3d 588, 590 (7th Cir. 1995). But
the Ninth and D.C. circuits had not. United States v. Vonn, 224 F.3d 1152, 1155 (9th Cir. 2000),
vacated by 535 U.S. 55, 122 S. Ct. 1043 (2002); United States v. Lyons, 53 F.3d 1321, 1322 n.1
(D.C. Cir. 1995).
10
In many cases, this circuit shortened the “affected substantial rights” inquiry to whether
the defendant carried his burden to show prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Bejarano, 249
F.3d 1304, 1306 (11th Cir. 2001) (stating in plain-error review that “the defendant bears the
burden of persuasion with respect to prejudice”) (internal quotations and citations omitted);
Hernandez- Fraire, 208 F.3d at 949 (stating in Rule 11 appeal that “[o]n plain error review, the
defendant bears the burden of persuasion with respect to prejudice”); Mosley, 173 F.3d at 1322
n.3 (stating that in plain-error review “the defendant bears the burden of persuasion with respect
to prejudice”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Quinones, 97 F.3d at 475 (“Plain
error analysis differs from harmless error analysis in that the defendant bears the burden of
persuasion with respect to prejudice.”).

15
 In evaluating whether a defendant has shown that his rights were

substantially affected or prejudiced, this Court has examined the three “core

objectives” of Rule 11, which are: (1) ensuring that the guilty plea is free of

coercion; (2) ensuring that the defendant understands the nature of the charges

against him; and (3) ensuring that the defendant is aware of the direct

consequences of the guilty plea. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d at 1289 (citations

omitted). This Court has upheld plea colloquies that fail to address an item

expressly required by Rule 11 so long as the overall plea colloquy adequately

addresses these three core concerns. See United States v. Morris, 286 F.3d 1291,

1294 (11th Cir. 2002) (Rule 11 error of not mentioning restitution); United States

v. Tyndale, 209 F.3d 1292, 1295-96 (11th Cir. 2000) (Rule 11 error of not

informing defendant of mandatory minimum sentence enhancement); Bejarano,

249 F.3d at 1307 (Rule 11 error of not informing defendant of mandatory

minimum term of supervised release); United States v. Camacho, 233 F.3d 1308,

1319 (11th Cir. 2000) (Rule 11 error of not informing defendant of the correct

maximum sentence); see also Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F.3d at 950 (stating that

16
“[g]enerally, this circuit will uphold a plea colloquy that technically violates Rule

11, but adequately addresses the three core concerns”).11

Further, we have located four plain-error cases where this Court has

concluded that a Rule 11 error substantially affected or prejudiced the defendant’s

rights. See Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F.3d at 951 (failure to satisfy third core concern

of Rule 11); United States v. Telemaque, 244 F.3d 1247, 1249 (11th Cir. 2001)

(failure to satisfy second core concern of Rule 11); United States v. James, 210

F.3d 1342, 1345-46 (11th Cir. 2000) (same); Quinones, 97 F.3d at 475 (same).12

11
See United States v. Caston, 615 F.2d 1111, 1114-16 (5th Cir. 1980) (no plain error
where defendant did not claim he was prejudiced in any way by failure to inform him of his right
to jury trial, right to assistance of counsel, and right not to be forced to incriminate himself at
trial, but rather argued for per se reversal). This Court adopted as binding precedent all Fifth
Circuit decisions prior to October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209
(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
12
In many other recent Rule 11 cases, this Court found no Rule 11 error at all or no error
that was plain, and thus in these cases we did not rule on the third or fourth prong of plain-error
review. See, e.g., United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003)
(concluding that because defendant did not “identify any provision of Rule 11 explicitly or
implicitly requiring a district court to inform a defendant that his appellate rights are limited by §
3742(a)” there was “no error at all”); United States v. Chubbuck, 252 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir.
2001) (stating that “[b]ecause no definitive case law exists on whether a guilty plea with
adjudication withheld constitutes a conviction under Florida law,” there was no plain error);
United States v. Humphrey, 164 F.3d 585, 587-88 (11th Cir. 1999) (stating that because federal
circuits were split on whether district court must inform defendant whether his sentences would
run consecutively, and because this circuit had not yet resolved the issue, there was no plain
error); United States v. Wiggins, 131 F.3d 1440, 1444 (11th Cir. 1997) (concluding that district
court adequately informed defendant of nature of charges); United States v. DePace, 120 F.3d
233, 238 (11th Cir. 1997) (same); United States v. Lopez, 907 F.2d 1096, 1100 (11th Cir. 1990)
(same); Dismuke v. United States, 864 F.2d 106, 107 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that “[n]othing in
Rule 11 requires the trial judge to inform the defendant of every possible defense he may have”);
United States v. Bell, 776 F.2d 965, 968 (11th Cir. 1985) (concluding that district court

17
However, all four cases involved not only violations of explicit requirements of

Rule 11, but also violations that resulted in a total or almost total failure to address

a Rule 11 core concern. In that regard, all four cases are significantly different

from Monroe’s, where the district court adequately addressed the three core

concerns but “slipped-up” and failed to cover explicitly one item in the Rule 11

list.

For example, in Hernandez-Fraire, the district court failed to inform

Hernandez-Fraire of (1) his right to plead not guilty and to maintain or persist in

that plea, (2) his right to the assistance of counsel at trial, (3) his right to confront

and cross-examine adverse witnesses at trial, and (4) his right against compelled

self-incrimination. 208 F.3d at 946. This Court in Hernandez-Fraire also

emphasized that the defendant expressed confusion and told the district court, “I

really don’t know about this plea because I don’t know what my rights are.” Id. at

948. The Rule 11 error in Hernandez-Fraire constituted an almost total failure to

address “the third core concern of Rule 11,” that the defendant know and

understand the consequences of his guilty plea. Id. at 950-51. The district court

adequately established defendant’s understanding of nature of charges); United States v. Stitzer,
785 F.2d 1506, 1513-14 (11th Cir. 1986) (concluding that district court adequately determined
that plea was not coerced); United States v. Byrd, 804 F.2d 1204, 1208 (11th Cir. 1986)
(concluding that district court adequately determined that guilty plea was voluntary and
defendant understood nature of charges).

18
not only failed to tell the defendant about these various rights, but also failed to

tell the defendant that he waived these rights by entering a guilty plea. Moreover,

in Hernandez-Fraire, the defendant even told the district court that he did not

know what his rights were.

In each of the other three cases, the district court did not advise the

defendant at all about the nature of the charges. Telemaque, 244 F.3d at 1250

(plain error in failing to describe to defendant with low educational achievement

“at all the nature of the charges against him”); James, 210 F.3d at 1345 (plain error

by “not specifying any of the elements involved in the charge or any facts that

would support the charge” to defendant with tenth grade education); Quinones, 97

F.3d at 475 (plain error by “never mention[ing] the elements” of the firearm

charge). The Rule 11 error in these three cases constituted a total failure to

address the second core objective of Rule 11, that the defendant understand the

nature of the charges against him. Id.

Having surveyed our precedent, we turn to whether the alleged Rule 11

error here substantially affected or prejudiced Monroe’s rights.

D. Third Prong: Prejudice

For several reasons, we conclude that Monroe has not carried his burden to

show that his rights were substantially affected or prejudiced by the alleged Rule

19
11 error. First, Monroe principally argues for per se reversal whenever any single

item listed in Rule 11 is not explicitly covered. As explained by the Supreme

Court in Vonn, the purpose of the harmless-error rule in Rule 11(h) is to end the

automatic reversal for any Rule 11 error. 535 U.S. at 66, 122 S. Ct. at 1050.

Likewise, the purpose of applying the plain-error rule in the Rule 11 context is to

end automatic reversal for any Rule 11 error.

Second, Monroe has not shown any form of prejudice by the district court’s

failure to inform him explicitly of his right against compelled self-incrimination.

The government’s proffer during the plea colloquy did not rely on any confession

by Monroe. Instead, that proffer relied on photographs, tapes, and the CI’s

testimony and demonstrated that Monroe’s testimony would have been

unnecessary at trial. Indeed, Monroe has not shown, or even argued, that he would

not have pled guilty had he been more fully apprised of his listed right against

compelled self-incrimination.

Third, the district court’s plea colloquy satisfied the core concerns of Rule

11. Although the district court did not state the precise words that Monroe had “a

right against compelled self-incrimination,” the district court’s plea colloquy

sufficiently addressed the third core concern – that the defendant must know and

understand the consequences of his guilty plea. One consequence of Monroe’s

20
guilty plea was that he waived certain constitutional rights. Although the district

court “slipped-up” and failed to mention explicitly the right against compelled

self-incrimination, the district court’s plea colloquy made it clear to Monroe that

he had numerous rights and was waiving them by entering a guilty plea. Further,

and importantly for this case, the district court also made it clear to Monroe that

“you don’t have to plead guilty.” The district court further told Monroe that

“[y]ou may continue in your plea of not guilty and go to trial.” In short, this is not

a case involving a total or almost total failure to address a core concern under Rule

11.

E. Fourth Prong: Discretion to Notice Forfeited Error

Alternatively, given the factual circumstances of this case, we decline to

exercise our discretion to notice any forfeited error. A court of appeals should not

exercise its discretion to notice a plain error unless the error “seriously affect[s]

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Vonn, 535

U.S. at 63, 122 S. Ct. at 1048 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)

(alteration in original); Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S. Ct. at 1776 (quoting United

States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S. Ct. 1038, 1046 (1985)) (other citations

omitted).

21
 In reviewing whether a plain error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity,

or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” the United States Supreme Court has

often rested its determination on the amount of evidence incriminating the

defendant, regardless of the error. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 632,

122 S. Ct. 1781, 1786 (2002) (refusing to notice error of omitting element of the

offense, quantity of drugs, from indictment when evidence that conspiracy

involved at least 50 grams was “overwhelming” and “essentially uncontroverted”);

Johnson, 520 U.S. at 470, 117 S. Ct. at 1550 (refusing to notice error of submitting

question of materiality to jury when evidence supporting materiality was

“overwhelming”).

Through an extended Rule 11 colloquy, Monroe was made aware of

numerous rights that he was waiving. Monroe has failed to show any prejudice,

or that he would have acted in another manner had he also been advised explicitly

of his right against compelled self-incrimination. Moreover, Monroe faced

overwhelming evidence against him in the form of photographs and tapes of the

single drug transaction in issue and the CI’s direct testimony. As the Supreme

Court observed in Johnson, “it would be the reversal of a conviction such as this

which would [seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of

22
judicial proceedings].” Id.13 As such, we conclude that any Rule 11 error in this

case does not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of

Monroe’s judicial proceedings, and we decline to take notice of the forfeited error.

IV. CONCLUSION

Given the overall record, we conclude that the alleged Rule 11 error in this

case did not substantially affect or prejudice Monroe’s rights. Alternatively, we

decline to notice any forfeited Rule 11 error because it did not seriously affect the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Thus, we

affirm Monroe’s conviction.14

AFFIRMED.

13
The Supreme Court further noted, “Reversal for error, regardless of its effect on the
judgment, encourages litigants to abuse the judicial process and bestirs the public to ridicule it.”
Johnson, 520 U.S. at 470, 117 S. Ct. at 1550 (quoting R. Traynor, The Riddle of Harmless Error
50 (1970)).
14
On an earlier remand from this Court, the district court found excusable neglect and
concluded that Monroe’s appeal should proceed. In the district court, the government joined in
Monroe’s motion for excusable neglect. The government’s brief on appeal did not raise that
issue or challenge that finding, but at oral argument, the government suggested for the first time
that this Court may lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. After review of the entire record, we
determine that we have jurisdiction and that Monroe’s appeal should proceed.

23