Case: 18-12259 Date Filed: 05/17/2019 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-12259 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00462-MSS-TGW-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ILFRENISE CHARLEMAGNE, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (May 17, 2019) Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. Case: 18-12259 Date Filed: 05/17/2019 Page: 2 of 10 PER CURIAM: Ilfrenise Charlemagne appeals her conviction and 33-month sentence imposed after Charlemagne pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Charlemagne also challenges the amount of her restitution and forfeiture obligations. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm in part and dismiss the appeal in part. I. On appeal, Charlemagne argues that her guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily; she says the district court (in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11) failed to inform her adequately of the consequences of her guilty plea. In particular, Charlemagne contends she was not advised properly about (1) her right to a speedy and public jury trial; (2) her right to testify and to compel the attendance of witnesses at trial; (3) her waiver of her trial rights if the district court accepted her guilty plea; and (4) the district court’s obligation to calculate the applicable guideline range and to consider that range, possible departures, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors in determining a sentence. 2 Case: 18-12259 Date Filed: 05/17/2019 Page: 3 of 10 Because Charlemagne raised no objection to the adequacy of her plea proceedings in the district court, we review this argument only for plain error. See United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005). Under the plain- error standard, the defendant must show “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” Id. An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if it “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005). A defendant seeking to establish plain error under Rule 11 “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 (2004). The district court must “conduct an inquiry into whether the defendant makes a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.” United States v. Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F.3d 945, 949 (11th Cir. 2000). Rule 11 directs specifically that the court inform the defendant of -- and make sure the defendant understands -- certain matters. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1). In determining whether a defendant’s plea is knowing and voluntary, the district court must address three “core concerns” underlying Rule 11: (1) whether the plea is free from coercion; (2) whether the defendant understands the nature of the charges; and (3) whether the defendant understands the consequences of the guilty plea. Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F.3d at 949. We will uphold ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals