United States v. Damase Cameron , 625 F. App'x 518 ( 2015 )

Case: 15-10640 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10640
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20206-BB-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAMASE CAMERON,
a.k.a. Dime,
a.k.a. Son Son,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 17, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10640 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 2 of 5
Damase Cameron appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess with the
intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and 846, and possession in furtherance of, or carrying of a firearm during and in
relation to, a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), both
resulting from pleas of guilty. On appeal, Cameron argues that the district court
erred when it failed to inform him prior to his guilty pleas that he might be
sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).1 After careful
consideration of the record and the briefs, we affirm.
When a defendant objects for the first time on appeal to deficiencies in his
plea colloquy, we review for plain error. United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d
1244, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 310 (2014). To establish
plain error, a defendant must show there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that
the error prejudiced his substantial rights. Id. “In the Rule 11 context, a defendant
who seeks to establish plain error must show a reasonable probability that, but for
the error, [the defendant] would not have entered the plea.” Id. at 1252 (quotation
omitted). Finally, we exercise our discretion under the plain error standard only if
“the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
1
Cameron also argues that he is entitled to have his guilty pleas vacated because, at his
plea colloquy, the district court failed to determine whether he understood and agreed to the
quantity of drugs attributed to his conduct. This argument is frivolous because the plea colloquy
repeatedly discussed the drug quantity and the record is clear that Cameron understood both the
amount of cocaine and cocaine base to which he was pleading guilty.
2
Case: 15-10640 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 3 of 5
proceedings.” United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005)
(quotation omitted).
Because a defendant waives a number of constitutional rights by entering a
guilty plea, due process requires the he make the plea “knowingly and voluntarily.”
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005). In accepting a
defendant’s guilty plea, a court “must comply with Rule 11 and specifically
address three ‘core principles,’ ensuring that a defendant (1) enters his guilty plea
free from coercion, (2) understands the nature of the charges, and (3) understands
the consequences of his plea.” Id. Under Rule 11, the district court must “inform
the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands . . . the nature of
each charge to which the defendant is pleading . . .” and “any maximum possible
penalty” or “mandatory minimum penalty.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(G), (H), (I).
The Rule also requires that the defendant be made aware of the advisory
Sentencing Guidelines calculation process. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(M).
We have held that “there is no one mechanical way or precise juncture to
which a district judge must conform in advising a defendant of the charges to
which he is pleading guilty.” United States v. Mosley, 173 F.3d 1318, 1322-23
(11th Cir. 1999) (quotations omitted). Instead, we review the record as a whole to
see if the core principles of Rule 11 are satisfied. Id. at 1323. Each plea colloquy
is assessed individually based on various factors including “the simplicity or
3
Case: 15-10640 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 4 of 5
complexity of the charges and the defendant’s sophistication and intelligence.” Id.
at 1322-23. Finally, it is not plain error when a court fails to advise a defendant of
the existence of a particular Guidelines provision that may enhance the sentence.
See United States v. Bozza, 132 F.3d 659, 661-62 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Bozza’s
contention that his purported lack of notice of the possible enhancement violated
Rule 11 is without merit. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1) advisory committee notes
(1989) (‘Since it will be impracticable, if not impossible, to know which guidelines
will be relevant prior to the formulation of a presentence report and resolution of
disputed facts, [Rule 11(c)(1)] does not require the court to specify which
guidelines will be important or which grounds for departure might prove to be
significant.’”)).
During the plea colloquy, the court also informed Cameron that he might be
sentenced anywhere between the statutory minimum and maximum, and that any
guideline range estimated by his counsel was not necessarily going to be accurate.
Cameron acknowledged this and proceeded with his plea. He cannot now claim
that the court erred by not informing him of the possibility he may receive a higher
sentence as a career offender when he was informed of the possibility he might
receive any sentence within the statutory range. Moreover, the district court asked
Cameron if he had discussed with his attorney the advisory Sentencing Guidelines
and how they might apply to his case. Cameron replied that he had. The district
4
Case: 15-10640 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 5 of 5
court did not plainly err because such a conversation with his attorney would have
informed Cameron of the potential incarceration consequences of his pleas. Even
assuming arguendo that the district court committed any error, Cameron has failed
to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have entered
the guilty pleas, as his argument to that effect is simply a conclusory statement.
AFFIRMED.
5