United States v. Carillo, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11177

Background

Jorge Carillo pled guilty without a plea agreement to a § 846 conspiracy charged as involving at least 100 grams of heroin; he also pled to two firearm offenses.
The superseding indictment listed multiple overt acts spanning June–October 2013; Carillo was tied only to a single June 20 purchase of ~50 grams (Overt Act One).
At the change-of-plea hearing the court: recited the charge in general terms, accepted a brief factual proffer referencing the single 50‑gram purchase, misstated the statutory maximum, and did not state the mandatory minimum.
The Presentence Report repeatedly stated the correct five‑year mandatory minimum and 40‑year maximum and concluded Carillo was primarily connected to a single purchase and “not identified as having distributed heroin within the conspiracy.”
On appeal Carillo raised for the first time that the plea colloquy violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(G),(H),(I) and 11(b)(3); the government did not identify other on‑record sources showing Carillo understood the elements or foreseeability of the 100‑gram quantity.
The Tenth Circuit found Rule 11(b)(3) error (lack of factual basis as to the 100‑gram quantity and interdependence/foreseeability) and remanded for further proceedings; it rejected relief on penalty‑warning errors because the record elsewhere informed Carillo of the mandatory minimum.

Issues

Issue	Carillo’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Rule 11(b)(1)(H)/(I): court failed to inform/confirm understanding of mandatory minimum and maximum	Plea was uninformed because court misstated maximum and omitted mandatory minimum at plea colloquy	Carillo knew of correct penalties from initial appearance, PSR, counsel’s discussions, so any Rule 11 error was harmless	Court: Plain error in failing to state/confirm penalties, but no relief — record shows Carillo knew penalties so no reasonable probability he would not have pled
Rule 11(b)(1)(G): court failed to explain nature/elements of conspiracy (including quantity element)	Plea involuntary because court did not explain elements or ensure understanding of the 100‑gram triggering element	Government argues elements can be supplied from other sources or counsel; record supports understanding	Court: There was a Rule 11(b)(1)(G) violation (no elements discussed), but declined to decide whether that alone affects substantial rights because Rule 11(b)(3) error is dispositive
Rule 11(b)(3): lack of factual basis for plea to conspiracy involving ≥100g (interdependence/foreseeability)	Record lacks facts showing 100‑gram quantity was within scope/foreseeable to Carillo; single 50g purchase insufficient	Government points to indictment and proffer; argues quantity allegation in indictment supports plea	Court: Plain error — factual basis inadequate for the 100‑gram quantity and conspiracy scope; vacated/ remanded for further proceedings
Remedy for Rule 11 violation	Vacatur of guilty plea or other appropriate relief	Leave remedy to district court on remand	Court: Remanded for further proceedings; left precise remedy to district court and parties

Key Cases Cited

Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (plain‑error review applies to unpreserved Rule 11 errors)
Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pled to prove prejudice for omitted Rule 11 warnings)
Landeros‑Lopez v. United States, 615 F.3d 1260 (Rule 11(b)(3) error distinct; factual‑basis analysis differs from Dominguez Benitez)
Ferrel v. United States, 603 F.3d 758 (Rule 11(b)(1)(G) requires element discussion in plea colloquy in similar plea posture)
Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (existence of factual basis is a distinct inquiry from voluntariness)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (defendant must understand law in relation to facts; essential elements requirement)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (drug‑quantity facts that increase mandatory minimum must be proved to jury or admitted)