United States v. Marco Barron-Sanchez

Case: 10-41322 Document: 00511637314 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 19, 2011
No. 10-41322
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MARCO ANTONIO BARRON-SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:10-CR-762-1
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marco Antonio Barron-Sanchez appeals his guilty plea conviction for
possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine.
Barron-Sanchez argues that his plea was not voluntary and knowing because the
district court failed to advise him of the availability and elements of a duress
defense. Citing United States v. Adams, 566 F.2d 962, 968 (5th Cir. 1978),
Barron-Sanchez contends that such action was required of the district court
because he indicated at his rearraignment and sentencing hearings that he
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 10-41322 Document: 00511637314 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2011
No. 10-41322
transported the cocaine at issue against his will due to fear of harm to himself
and his family. According to Barron-Sanchez, the district court’s failure to
directly admonish him regarding the defense of duress implicated the district
court’s duties under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 to ensure that he
understood the nature of the charge and that an adequate factual basis existed
for his guilty plea.
Because Barron-Sanchez did not object on this ground in the district court,
his argument is subject to review under the plain error standard. See United
States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To satisfy the
plain error standard, the appellant must show a forfeited error that is clear or
obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556
U.S. 129, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). If the appellant makes such a showing,
this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
A guilty plea involves the waiver of several constitutional rights and
accordingly must be made knowingly and voluntarily. Boykin v. Alabama, 395
U.S. 238, 242-44 (1969). “Rule 11 ensures that a guilty plea is knowing and
voluntary by requiring the district court to follow certain procedures before
accepting such a plea.” United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2002).
The district court informed Barron-Sanchez of the elements of his charged
offense, explicitly questioned defense counsel about the possibility of a duress
defense, was told by defense counsel that counsel had explained the defense of
duress to Barron-Sanchez, and ensured that Barron-Sanchez desired to plead
guilty despite the possibility of asserting a duress defense.
As previously recognized by this court, Rule 11 contains no provision
requiring the district court to advise a defendant of possible defenses, a point
conceded by Barron-Sanchez. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11; U.S. ex rel. Salisbury v.
Blackburn, 792 F.2d 498, 500 (5th Cir. 1986). “An error is considered plain, or
obvious, only if the error is clear under existing law.” United States v. Salinas,
2
Case: 10-41322 Document: 00511637314 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/19/2011
No. 10-41322
480 F.3d 750, 756 (5th Cir. 2007). Barron-Sanchez has not shown that this court
has decided the relevant question conclusively in a manner favorable to his
argument and thus has failed to satisfy his burden under plain error review of
demonstrating clear or obvious error. See id.; United States v. Abreo, 30 F.3d 29,
31 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994); Salisbury, 792 F.2d at 500-01; Adams, 566 F.2d at 968.
AFFIRMED.
3