Case: 11-15387 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15387
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:02-cr-00211-SDM-MAP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HECTOR M. SAINZ,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 7, 2012)
Before HULL, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Hector M. Sainz appeals his conviction of possessing with intent to
distribute methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Sainz argues that his plea of
Case: 11-15387 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 2 of 4
guilty was involuntary because he was confused about the basis for his plea. The
United States counters that Sainz waived any challenge to the validity of his guilty
plea by failing to object in the district court to the recommendation of the
magistrate judge to accept the plea of guilty. We affirm.
We need not decide whether Sainz waived his right to appeal the validity of
his guilty plea, because his challenge to his guilty plea fails under review for plain
error. Under that standard, a defendant must prove that an error occurred that is
plain and affects his substantial rights. United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012,
1019 (11th Cir. 2005). If the defendant satisfies those conditions, “we may
exercise our discretion to recognize a forfeited error, but only if the error ‘seriously
affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id.
(quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1776 (1993)).
The magistrate judge did not plainly err in accepting Sainz’s guilty plea.
During his change of plea hearing, where Sainz was accompanied by counsel and
assisted by an interpreter who spoke Spanish, Sainz stated that he understood and
wanted to waive his right to trial in order to enter a guilty plea. Sainz had entered a
plea agreement with the government, and he acknowledged that the agreement had
been translated for his benefit; he had discussed the agreement with his attorney;
he understood the contents of the agreement; and he understood the consequences
2
Case: 11-15387 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 3 of 4
of entering a guilty plea, which included deportation to Mexico. Sainz said that he
understood the elements of the offense charged in his indictment; he was guilty of
that offense; and the factual proffer in his plea agreement was “true and correct.”
The proffer stated that Sainz consented to a search of his residence; during the
search, officers discovered “approximately 4.5 pounds of Methamphetamine and
$7,681” in cash; and Sainz “was knowingly holding and storing the
Methamphetamine/drugs for individuals who were going to sell them later, and
knew that they were going to sell them.”
Sainz gave inconsistent responses when asked if he knew whether the plastic
bags found in his house contained drugs and if he knew the quantity of those drugs,
but both Sainz and his attorney blamed the inconsistencies on his “confusion”
about how to convert the weight of the methamphetamine from grams to pounds.
Concerned about Sainz’s inconsistencies, the magistrate judge explained to Sainz
that he should not plead guilty to a crime of which he was innocent. Sainz said
that he “was holding [the methamphetamine],” but the magistrate judge called a
recess for Sainz to confer with counsel.
When the hearing resumed, the magistrate judge asked Sainz what he
“want[ed] to do,” and Sainz responded, “[p]lead guilty.” Sainz then acknowledged
that he possessed methamphetamine; knew it was an illegal drug; intended to
3
Case: 11-15387 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 4 of 4
deliver it to someone else; and was pleading guilty because he was “in fact, guilty
of the offense.” Sainz identifies no controlling authority that would have required
the magistrate judge to conclude that his plea was involuntary. Based on this
record, the magistrate judge did not plainly err when he concluded that Sainz had
knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the drug offense.
Nor can we say that the acceptance of Sainz’s plea affects his substantial
rights or seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. Sainz consented to a search of his home, inside which police officers
discovered 2,184 grams of methamphetamine, a loaded .22 caliber pistol, $7,681 in
cash, two digital scales, a box of .22 caliber ammunition, and a box of plastic heat-
seal bags, which is consistent with distribution as opposed to personal use of the
drug. See United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389, 1392 (11th Cir. 1989); United
States v. Marszalkowski, 669 F.2d 655, 662 (11th Cir. 1982). And Sainz’s
confession was consistent with the evidence discovered by the officers. See
Fallada v. Dugger, 819 F.2d 1564, 1570 (11th Cir. 1987). Sainz confessed that he
“went up to Georgia and paid $27,000 for five pounds of crank” and “then came
back to sell it.” The evidence of Sainz’s guilt is overwhelming.
We AFFIRM Sainz’s conviction.
4