United States v. Efrain Rodriguez-Candelaria

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 05-14429 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APR 6, 2007
________________________
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 04-00327 CR-T-24MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EFRAIN RODRIGUEZ-CANDELARIA,
a.k.a. Tony,
FELIX C. CASTRO,
a.k.a. Alex,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 6, 2007)
Before DUBINA and COX, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
Defendants Efrain Rodriguez-Candelaria and Felix C. Castro were convicted
after a bench trial of: (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 5
kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), 846; (2)
possession of a firearm and ammunition in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); and (3) possession of a firearm and
ammunition as convicted felons, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Defendants
appeal.
Both Defendants present the following arguments in attacking their
convictions: (1) the court erred in granting the Defendants’ motions to represent
themselves at trial, and in allowing them to waive their right to a jury trial; (2) the
court abused its discretion in denying their motions for a mistrial on the third day of
trial after having erroneously allowed them to represent themselves and waive their
right to trial by jury; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to prove that they were
convicted felons because the conviction packages received in evidence did not
sufficiently identify them as the men who had been convicted. Additionally, the
Defendant Rodriguez-Candelaria argues that the cumulative effect of these errors
rendered his trial unfair.
Both Defendants also attack their sentences, presenting the following
arguments: (1) the court erred in sentencing them as career offenders under the
2
Guidelines because they were not sufficiently identified as the men who had been
convicted; and (2) sentencing the Defendants based upon prior convictions not
proved at trial beyond a reasonable doubt violated the Sixth Amendment.
Having carefully considered the briefs and relevant parts of the record, and
having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that none of the Defendants’
arguments have merit. Accordingly, their convictions and sentences are affirmed.
Though none of the parties raise the issue, there are clerical errors in the
judgments. COUNT ONE of the superseding indictment charges a conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), 846.1 However, the judgments against Rodriguez-
Candelaria2 and Castro3 incorrectly characterize COUNT ONE as “possession with
intent to distribute cocaine.” Because the errors are clerical, we vacate the judgments
as to COUNT ONE and direct the district court to correct the clerical errors; we
remand for that limited purpose. See United States v. Anderton, 136 F.3d 747, 751
(11th Cir. 1998). The judgments should state that the nature of the offense is
“conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.”
1
R1-12 at 1.
2
R1-110 at 1.
3
R1-111 at 1.
3
THE CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES ARE AFFIRMED; THE
JUDGMENTS AS TO COUNT ONE ARE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR
THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF CORRECTING CLERICAL ERRORS.
4