Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 16-17349 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20109-FAM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JORGE HERNANDEZ, a.k.a. Trolo, a.k.a. Cuba,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________
(September 26, 2018)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 2 of 10
Jorge Hernandez appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). Hernandez pleaded guilty to the 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a) charge and was sentenced to 210 months in prison—25 months below the
low end of the guideline range—and a lifetime term of supervised release. On
appeal, Hernandez argues that the district court committed plain error by
improperly advising him as to his possible term of supervised release at the plea
colloquy. He argues that this error affected his substantial rights. Hernandez also
argues that the district court plainly erred in concluding that the plea agreement
had a sufficient factual basis, plainly erred by imposing a lifetime term of
supervised release, and plainly erred in determining that he qualified as a career
offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). Upon thorough review of the briefs and the
record, we affirm.
I. Statement Regarding Maximum Term of Supervised Release
We review for plain error when a defendant does not object to a Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 colloquy error in the district court. United States v. Brown, 586 F.3d
1342, 1345 (11th Cir. 2009). To establish plain error, a defendant must show that
there is an error, that it was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights. United
States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). When a
defendant asserts that the district court committed plain error under Rule 11 and
2 Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 3 of 10
seeks reversal of his conviction after pleading guilty, the defendant must “show a
reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.”
Id. at 1020. Even then, the error must “seriously affect[] the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Ternus, 598 F.3d 1251,
1254 (11th Cir. 2010). The burden is on the defendant to show that there was an
error and that it did affect his substantial rights. United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d
1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003). Statements made under oath by a defendant during a
colloquy receive a strong presumption of truthfulness. United States v. Medlock,
12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir. 1994).
In evaluating whether a Rule 11 error has substantially affected a
defendant’s rights, we examine Rule 11’s three “core principles,” which ensure
that: (1) the guilty plea is free of coercion; (2) the defendant understands the nature
of the charges against him; and (3) the defendant understands the direct
consequences of the guilty plea. Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1019. We will consider
the whole record when assessing whether a Rule 11 error affects a defendant’s
substantial rights. Brown, 586 F.3d at 1345. Misadvising as to the maximum term
of supervised release for a guilty plea can go to the knowing and voluntary nature
of that plea. See Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1019; see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(b)(1)(H).
Here, the district court erred when it advised Hernandez at his plea colloquy
that he faced a maximum term of supervised release of five years. However,
3 Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 4 of 10
Hernandez has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights.
Hernandez’s plea agreement clearly indicated that Hernandez faced a minimum
term of 5 years’ supervised release. 1 At the plea colloquy, the district court ensured
that Hernandez understood “the consequences of [his] guilty plea, the sentencing
guidelines and everything about this case.” Hernandez confirmed his signature on
the plea agreement and stated that his attorney had been “absolutely clear . . . and
very professional explaining everything.” Furthermore, the PSI correctly advised
Hernandez as to the mandatory minimum term of supervised release; Hernandez
acknowledged that he had read the PSI and did not have any objections to it; and
Hernandez did not object to the court’s imposition of a lifetime term of supervised
release. Hernandez has not shown that but for the district court’s misstatement of
the possible term of supervised release, he would not have pleaded guilty. See
Brown, 586 F.3d at 1346–47 (holding that defendant’s substantial rights were not
violated where both the district court and the plea agreement misadvised the
defendant as to the maximum term of supervised release, but where the PSI stated
the correct term and the defendant did not object to the PSI or the sentence).
1 This itself was an error, as the mandatory minimum was only 4 years. However, if anything, this error only further highlighted that Hernandez was agreeing to a significant mandatory minimum of supervised release. 4 Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 5 of 10
II. Factual Basis for the Plea Agreement
In reviewing whether the plea agreement has a sufficient factual basis, we
determine “whether the [district] court was presented with evidence from which it
could reasonably find that the defendant was guilty.” United States v. Puentes-
Hurtado, 794 F.3d 1278, 1287 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted and alteration in
original). When the defendant fails to object to violations of Rule 11 at the district
court level, we review the issue under the plain-error standard. Id. at 1285–87.
The district court did not plainly err in concluding that the factual basis for
the plea agreement was sufficient for finding Hernandez guilty of possession with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). The factual proffer, which Hernandez signed and
agreed to at the plea colloquy, detailed how Hernandez conspired with
codefendants to transport methamphetamine from California to South Florida and
to process it into crystal methamphetamine, and how the DEA seized five pounds
of crystal methamphetamine which Hernandez had intended to sell. The district
court did not plainly err in determining that these facts, which covered the
elements of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii), were sufficient to support
Hernandez’s guilty plea.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 16-17349 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20109-FAM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JORGE HERNANDEZ, a.k.a. Trolo, a.k.a. Cuba,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________
(September 26, 2018)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 2 of 10
Jorge Hernandez appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). Hernandez pleaded guilty to the 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a) charge and was sentenced to 210 months in prison—25 months below the
low end of the guideline range—and a lifetime term of supervised release. On
appeal, Hernandez argues that the district court committed plain error by
improperly advising him as to his possible term of supervised release at the plea
colloquy. He argues that this error affected his substantial rights. Hernandez also
argues that the district court plainly erred in concluding that the plea agreement
had a sufficient factual basis, plainly erred by imposing a lifetime term of
supervised release, and plainly erred in determining that he qualified as a career
offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). Upon thorough review of the briefs and the
record, we affirm.
I. Statement Regarding Maximum Term of Supervised Release
We review for plain error when a defendant does not object to a Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 colloquy error in the district court. United States v. Brown, 586 F.3d
1342, 1345 (11th Cir. 2009). To establish plain error, a defendant must show that
there is an error, that it was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights. United
States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). When a
defendant asserts that the district court committed plain error under Rule 11 and
2 Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 3 of 10
seeks reversal of his conviction after pleading guilty, the defendant must “show a
reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.”
Id. at 1020. Even then, the error must “seriously affect[] the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Ternus, 598 F.3d 1251,
1254 (11th Cir. 2010). The burden is on the defendant to show that there was an
error and that it did affect his substantial rights. United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d
1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003). Statements made under oath by a defendant during a
colloquy receive a strong presumption of truthfulness. United States v. Medlock,
12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir. 1994).
In evaluating whether a Rule 11 error has substantially affected a
defendant’s rights, we examine Rule 11’s three “core principles,” which ensure
that: (1) the guilty plea is free of coercion; (2) the defendant understands the nature
of the charges against him; and (3) the defendant understands the direct
consequences of the guilty plea. Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1019. We will consider
the whole record when assessing whether a Rule 11 error affects a defendant’s
substantial rights. Brown, 586 F.3d at 1345. Misadvising as to the maximum term
of supervised release for a guilty plea can go to the knowing and voluntary nature
of that plea. See Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1019; see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(b)(1)(H).
Here, the district court erred when it advised Hernandez at his plea colloquy
that he faced a maximum term of supervised release of five years. However,
3 Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 4 of 10
Hernandez has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights.
Hernandez’s plea agreement clearly indicated that Hernandez faced a minimum
term of 5 years’ supervised release. 1 At the plea colloquy, the district court ensured
that Hernandez understood “the consequences of [his] guilty plea, the sentencing
guidelines and everything about this case.” Hernandez confirmed his signature on
the plea agreement and stated that his attorney had been “absolutely clear . . . and
very professional explaining everything.” Furthermore, the PSI correctly advised
Hernandez as to the mandatory minimum term of supervised release; Hernandez
acknowledged that he had read the PSI and did not have any objections to it; and
Hernandez did not object to the court’s imposition of a lifetime term of supervised
release. Hernandez has not shown that but for the district court’s misstatement of
the possible term of supervised release, he would not have pleaded guilty. See
Brown, 586 F.3d at 1346–47 (holding that defendant’s substantial rights were not
violated where both the district court and the plea agreement misadvised the
defendant as to the maximum term of supervised release, but where the PSI stated
the correct term and the defendant did not object to the PSI or the sentence).
1 This itself was an error, as the mandatory minimum was only 4 years. However, if anything, this error only further highlighted that Hernandez was agreeing to a significant mandatory minimum of supervised release. 4 Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 5 of 10
II. Factual Basis for the Plea Agreement
In reviewing whether the plea agreement has a sufficient factual basis, we
determine “whether the [district] court was presented with evidence from which it
could reasonably find that the defendant was guilty.” United States v. Puentes-
Hurtado, 794 F.3d 1278, 1287 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted and alteration in
original). When the defendant fails to object to violations of Rule 11 at the district
court level, we review the issue under the plain-error standard. Id. at 1285–87.
The district court did not plainly err in concluding that the factual basis for
the plea agreement was sufficient for finding Hernandez guilty of possession with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). The factual proffer, which Hernandez signed and
agreed to at the plea colloquy, detailed how Hernandez conspired with
codefendants to transport methamphetamine from California to South Florida and
to process it into crystal methamphetamine, and how the DEA seized five pounds
of crystal methamphetamine which Hernandez had intended to sell. The district
court did not plainly err in determining that these facts, which covered the
elements of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii), were sufficient to support
Hernandez’s guilty plea.
5 Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 6 of 10
III. Lifetime Term of Supervised Release
Next, Hernandez argues that his sentence of lifetime supervised release was
procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Specifically, he contends that the
district court failed to set forth its reasons for its sentence and made no case-
specific findings to warrant a lifetime term of supervised release. Because
Hernandez failed to state a clear objection to the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of his sentence in the district court, we review for plain error. 2
United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1087 (11th Cir. 2003).
In imposing a term of supervised release, the sentencing court must consider
certain factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c).
Section 841(b)(1)(B)(viii) provides that, notwithstanding 18 U.S.C. § 3583, the
general scheme for inclusion of a term of supervised release, “any sentence
imposed under this subparagraph shall . . . include a term of supervised release of
at least 4 years in addition to” the term of imprisonment.
The district court did not plainly err in sentencing Hernandez to a lifetime
term of supervised release. The district court correctly calculated the guideline
range for Hernandez’s term of supervised release, the statute placed no maximum
on the term, and the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and
2 While Hernandez did object to the sentence in making a request for mental health treatment, once the court assured Hernandez that the supervised release would be accompanied by mental health treatment, Hernandez stated that he had no other substantive or procedural objections. 6 Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 7 of 10
Hernandez’s below guideline sentence of imprisonment when imposing the term of
supervised release. In light of Hernandez’s past convictions, his violation of his
supervised release by committing the instant offense, and the court’s thoughtful
consideration of his circumstances in sentencing him well below the bottom of the
guideline range, his lifetime term of supervised release was reasonable.
IV. Career Offender
Finally, Hernandez argues that his three prior federal convictions for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, for which he was sentenced
on the same day, and his California conviction for attempted murder do not meet
the criteria for predicate offenses under the career-offender guideline.
Because Hernandez conceded that he was a career offender both in his
objections to the PSI and at sentencing, we review Hernandez’s career-offender
classification for plain error. United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152, 1222 (11th
Cir. 2010). Where the explicit language of a statute or rule does not specifically
resolve an issue, there can be no plain error where there is no precedent from the
Supreme Court or this court directly resolving it. United States v. Lejarde-Rada,
319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).
To qualify as a career offender, a defendant in a felony drug case must be at
least 18 when he committed the instant offense and have two prior felony
convictions for crimes of violence, controlled substance offenses, or one of each.
7 Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 8 of 10
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). Section 4B1.2(c) defines “two prior felony convictions” as at
least two felony convictions for a crime of violence and a controlled substance
offense in addition to the instant offense where the sentences for at least two of the
aforementioned felony convictions are counted separately. Id. § 4B1.2(c). If there
is no intervening arrest between sentences, “prior sentences are counted separately
unless (A) the sentence resulted from offenses contained in the same charging
instrument; or (B) the sentences were imposed on the same day.” Id.
§ 4A1.2(a)(2).
The 2015 Guidelines define “controlled substance offense” as:
an offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). For the purposes of this provision, a “controlled substance
offense” includes “the offenses of aiding and abetting, conspiring, and attempting
to commit such offenses. Id. cmt. n.1. A “prior felony conviction” is “a prior adult
federal or state conviction for an offense punishable by death or imprisonment for
a term exceeding one year, regardless of whether such offense is specifically
designated as a felony and regardless of the actual sentence imposed.” Id.
Section 4B1.2(a) defines “crime of violence” as any offense under federal or
state law that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and: 8 Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 9 of 10
(1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or
(2) is murder . . . .
Id. § 4B1.2(a). The application notes for “a crime of violence” state that that an
attempt to commit a crime of violence constitutes a crime of violence. Id. § 4B1.2,
cmt. n.1. The definition of “crime of violence” provided by the Guidelines
commentary is authoritative. United States v. Hall, 714 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir.
2013).
To be convicted of murder in California, the state must prove an “unlawful
killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” Cal. Penal Code
§ 187. In California, attempted murder requires that “a direct but ineffectual act
was committed by one person toward killing another human being and the person
committing the act harbored express malice aforethought, namely, a specific intent
to unlawfully kill another human being.” Cal. Penal Code § 664(e). The United
States Code similarly defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being
with malice aforethought.” 18 U.S.C. § 1111. The elements of an attempted crime
require proof that the defendant (1) acted with the state of mind required for the
commission of the crime and (2) made an overt act towards commission of that
crime. See United States v. Plummer, 221 F.3d 1298, 1303 (11th Cir. 2000).
There was no plain error here. Hernandez’s three felony controlled
substance convictions should all have been counted as one offense for the career- 9 Case: 16-17349 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 10 of 10
offender enhancement, because he was sentenced for each on the same day. See
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). Nevertheless, the district court did not plainly err in
determining that Hernandez was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) based
on one prior felony controlled substance offense—conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine—and one prior crime of violence conviction—
California attempted murder. To the extent any ambiguity exists as to whether
California attempted murder is overbroad, there is no precedent from this court or
the Supreme Court that specifically resolves the issue, and, thus, there can be no
plain error. See Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d at 1291.
V. Conclusion
The district court did not commit plain error when advising Hernandez of his
term of supervised release at the plea colloquy; in concluding that the plea
agreement had a sufficient factual basis; in imposing a lifetime term of supervised
release; and in determining that Hernandez qualified as a career offender under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). Accordingly, we affirm Hernandez’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.