18-535 United States v. Damon Montgomery, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 20th day of May, two thousand twenty one. Present: JON O. NEWMAN, GUIDO CALABRESI, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. 18-535-cr DAMON MONTGOMERY, AKA DANG, Defendant-Appellant, 1 _____________________________________________________ Appearing for Appellant: Sarah Kunstler, Brooklyn, N.Y. Appearing for Appellee: Katherine A. Gregory, Assistant United States Attorney, for James P. Kennedy, Jr., United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, N.Y. 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as above. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Geraci, C.J.). ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. Damon Montgomery appeals from the February 16, 2018 judgment of conviction of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Geraci, C.J.) following his plea of guilty to a one-count superseding information charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Montgomery received a sentence consisting principally of 216 months’ imprisonment pursuant to a plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. Montgomery primarily argues on appeal that the district court failed to comply with several required aspects of Rule 11 in his plea colloquy, and therefore, his plea was unknowing and involuntary. Rule 11 is “designed to assist the district judge in making the constitutionally required determination that a defendant's guilty plea is truly voluntary.” United States v. Maher, 108 F.3d 1513, 1520 (2d Cir. 1997). Where, as here, a defendant has failed to object in the district court to a violation of Rule 11, reversal is appropriate only where the error is plain and affects the defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58–59 (2002). To establish plain error, a defendant must show: (1) that there was error, (2) that the error was plain, and (3) the error prejudicially affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals