United States v. Davila

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-27-2003
USA v. Davila
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 02-1446
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Davila" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 710.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/710
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 02-1446
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GEOVANI DAVILA,
a/k/a Giovanni,
a/k/a Jovante,
a/k/a John Doe,
Geovani Davila,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 01-cr-00018)
District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on January 17, 2003
Before: ROTH, FUENTES
and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed March 27, 2003 )
OPINION
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
Geovani Davila appeals a final judgment of conviction from the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On June 20, 2001, Davila pled
guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute
heroin. On February 8, 2002, Davila was sentenced to 384 months imprisonment. Davila
appeals, contending that the District Court erred in accepting his guilty plea without first
establishing a factual basis for a conspiratorial agreement in violation of F.R.Crim.P. 11(f).
Davila did not bring this alleged error to the attention of the District Court.
We exercise appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
unpreserved challenges to plea colloquies for plain error. See e.g. United States v. Vonn,
535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002).
Davila argues that the District Court erroneously accepted his guilty plea without
establishing a valid factual basis to support the conspiracy count as required by F.R.Crim.P.
11(f). To meet the plain error test. Davila must prove that (1) an error was committed, (2)
the error was plain, (3) the error effected Davila’s substantial rights, and (4) the Court of
Appeals should exercise its discretion to correct the error because it seriously effects the
fairness, integrity or reputations of the judicial proceedings. See e.g. United States v.
Syme, 276 F. 3d 131, 143 (2002) citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734
2
(1993).
Davila contends that the “plain error” here is the lack of a factual basis for a
“conspiratorial agreement.” F.R.Crim.P. 11(f) requires that “notwithstanding the
acceptance of a plea of guilty, the court should not enter a judgment ... without making such
inquiry as shall satisfy that there is a factual basis for the plea.” However, the court does
not need to be convinced that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when
accepting a guilty plea, only that there is sufficient evidence to justify the reaching of such
a conclusion. See United States v. Cefaratti, 221 F. 3d 502, 509 (3d Cir. 2000).
Here, during Davila’s guilty plea colloquy, the District Court recited and explained
the conspiracy charge to Davila and asked if he knowingly and voluntarily agreed to plea
guilty. Davila affirmed that he did. Further, the District Court explained the legal
definition of conspiracy to Davila and asked if he understood and agreed to plea to
conspiracy and the unlawful acts of distributing heroin. Davila again affirmed. Finally, the
District Court asked the government to present the facts that supported the charged
offense. The government did so and the District Court determined that the guilty plea was
supported by a basis in fact and contained all elements of the charged offense. We find no
error, muchless plain error. Davila has failed to meet his burden.
For the above reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
By the Court,
/s/ Jane R. Roth
Circuit Judge
4