United States v. Sergio Motuto Silva

Case: 17-11367 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11367
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cr-00257-AKK-JHE-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SERGIO MOTUTO SILVA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(September 14, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-11367 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 2 of 9
Sergio Silva appeals his convictions that were entered on pleas of guilty to
conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute 5 kilograms or
more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846,
841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), attempting to possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or
more of cocaine, id. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C), and possessing with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, id. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 2. Silva argues, for the first time on appeal, that his guilty
pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily because he was unaware that he
would receive a sentence enhancement for possessing a firearm, United States
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (Nov. 2016). After careful review,
we affirm.
Silva entered a written agreement to plead guilty to three drug offenses in
exchange for the dismissal of one additional drug charge. The written agreement
stated that the district court would find facts to calculate Silva’s advisory
sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines, the sentencing recommendation
of the government was not binding on the district court, and the decision about
what sentence to impose rested in the discretion of the district court. The
agreement also provided that the plea agreement would not prohibit the district
court from considering additional factors to fashion an appropriate sentence.
2
Case: 17-11367 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 3 of 9
During the change of plea hearing, Silva confirmed that he understood he
faced a sentencing range of 10 years to life imprisonment for his conspiracy and
for his possession of methamphetamine offenses, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 2, and a sentencing range of 5 to 40 years of imprisonment
for attempting to possess cocaine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B),
(b)(1)(C). When the district court asked whether there were “any enhancements in
this case,” the prosecutor responded, “No enhancements.”
Silva acknowledged that he had conferred with his attorney about the
Sentencing Guidelines, that his sentencing range would not be determined until
sentencing, and that the sentence imposed might differ from the estimate provided
by his attorney:
THE COURT: Any sentence that I give you will be subject to the
requirements of the United States Sentencing Guidelines but the Court
may go above or below those guidelines under some limited
circumstances. Have you and your lawyer talked about the sentencing
guidelines and how they may apply in your case? Have you talked
about sentencing guidelines?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And you understand that I will not be able to determine
your sentence under the guidelines under several months down the
road after I have had some additional information; do you understand
that, sir?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
3
Case: 17-11367 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 4 of 9
THE COURT: And do you also understand that what I ultimately give
you may be different from any estimate that your lawyer may have
given you?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
Silva also confirmed that the recommendations made by the government in
its agreement were not binding on the district court. And Silva acknowledged that
he understood that he would not be allowed to withdraw his pleas of guilty if he
received a more severe sentence than what the government recommended.
THE COURT: Do you understand that the Court is not required to go
along with any recommendations that the government has agreed to
make on your behalf?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And do you understand that if I sentence you to
something that’s worse than what the government recommends, you
cannot use that as a reason to take back your guilty plea?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
After Silva acknowledged a second time that the district court was unaware of
Silva’s actual sentence but that he would face minimum sentences of 10 years each
for his conspiracy and methamphetamine offenses and a minimum sentence of 5
years for his cocaine offense, the district court accepted Silva’s pleas of guilty.
Silva’s presentence investigation report provided a sentencing range of 235
to 293 months of imprisonment based on a total offense level of 38 and a criminal
history of I. The presentence report grouped Silva’s offenses and provided a base
4
Case: 17-11367 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 5 of 9
offense level of 36, which it increased by two levels for his possession of a firearm.
U.S.S.C. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The report also increased Silva’s offense level by three
levels for his role as a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy, see id. § 3B1.1(b),
and subtracted three levels for his acceptance of responsibility, see id. § 3E1.1.
Silva objected to the presentence report and opposed the sentence
enhancements and the denial of safety valve relief. The government moved the
district court to depart downward to an offense level of 35, U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1,
which resulted in Silva receiving an adjusted sentencing range of 168 to 210
months of imprisonment. The government requested that the district court sentence
Silva to 176 months of imprisonment.
At sentencing, Silva withdrew his objections to the presentence report. The
district court adopted the findings in the presentence report and accepted its
calculation of Silva’s advisory sentencing range. The district court also granted the
motion of the government to depart downward by 3 levels and calculated Silva’s
sentencing range using an adjusted base offense of 35. The district court sentenced
Silva to three concurrent sentences of 170 months of imprisonment, credited him
for 20 months and 19 days he had served in a state court, and dismissed the
remaining charge against him.
Silva argues, for the first time, that his plea was not knowingly and
voluntarily entered because he was unaware that his sentence would be enhanced
5
Case: 17-11367 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 6 of 9
for his possession of a firearm. Because Silva did not challenge the validity of his
pleas of guilty in the district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Sosa,
782 F.3d 630, 636 (11th Cir. 2015). To satisfy that standard, Silva must prove that
an error occurred that is plain and that affected his substantial rights. See id.Because Silva pleaded guilty, he “must show a reasonable probability that, but for
the error, he would not have entered [his] plea[s].” United States v. Dominguez
Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004).
A plea of guilty is valid so long as it is entered voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently. See Sosa, 782 F.3d at 636. For a guilty plea to be knowing and
voluntary, the district court must address three “core concerns,” which are that the
defendant is not being coerced to plead guilty, that he understands the nature of the
charges against him, and that he knows and understands the consequences of
changing his plea from not guilty to guilty. United States v. Symington, 781 F.3d
1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2015). The failure of the district court to notify the defendant
of a potential guideline enhancement does not affect the validity of his guilty plea
so long as he is aware that consideration of the Sentencing Guidelines could affect
his sentence. See United States v. Bozza, 132 F.3d 659, 661–62 (11th Cir. 1998).
As explained in the advisory committee notes to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11, “the district court [must] inform a defendant that the court is
required to consider any applicable guidelines” to “assure[] that the existence of
6
Case: 17-11367 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 7 of 9
guidelines will be known to a defendant before a plea of guilty . . . is accepted,” yet
because it is “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 . . . might prove to be significant.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) advisory
committee’s note to 1989 amendment.
We find no error, plain or otherwise, in the decision of the district court to
accept Silva’s pleas of guilty. Silva does not argue that he was coerced, induced, or
tricked into pleading guilty, nor does he dispute that he understood the crimes to
which he was pleading guilty. Symington, 781 F.3d at 1314. Silva knew that he
could receive maximum statutory sentences of 40 years and of life imprisonment
for his crimes. And the record establishes that Silva knew that the guidelines could
affect his sentence. See Bozza, 132 F.3d at 661–62. Silva acknowledged that the
guidelines governed the calculation of his sentencing range, that the district court
could not determine his sentencing range without additional information, and that
the application of the guidelines could result in a sentencing range different from
the range estimated by his attorney. Silva also was aware that he could not
withdraw his plea if he received a greater sentence than he anticipated. The failure
of the district court to notify Silva that his guideline range might be enhanced for
possessing a firearm did not affect the validity of his guilty plea. See id.; Fed. R.
7
Case: 17-11367 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 8 of 9
Crim. P. 11 advisory committee’s note (1989). Silva entered his pleas of guilty
knowingly and voluntarily.
When the district court asked the prosecutor at the plea hearing whether
there were any enhancements, the context made clear that the district court was
asking about statutory, not guideline, enhancements. It would have been premature
to discuss guideline calculations before the preparation of the presentence report.
And the district court later made sure that Silva understood that the guidelines
could affect his sentence.
Even if we were to assume that a plain error occurred, Silva cannot establish
that the error affected his substantial rights. Silva does not argue that, had he
known that he was subject to the firearm enhancement, he would not have pleaded
guilty and proceeded to trial. See Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83. In any event,
the application of the firearm enhancement did not result in a penalty greater than
what Silva expected. The two-level enhancement produced an advisory guideline
range that was well below Silva’s maximum statutory penalties. And ultimately,
the enhancement did not affect Silva’s sentence. At sentencing, the district court
departed downward three levels, which eliminated the two-level enhancement he
received for possessing a firearm. The district court calculated an adjusted
sentencing range—and imposed a sentence—significantly below than the low end
of Silva’s advisory guideline range.
8
Case: 17-11367 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 9 of 9
We AFFIRM Silva’s convictions.
9