860 F.3d 32
1st Cir.2017Background
- On Oct. 19, 2014, Puerto Rico police stopped Carlos Díaz‑Concepción on a motorcycle and found a loaded machine gun (holstered), two loaded magazines, 13 individually packaged bags of cocaine, one bag of marijuana, and $3,138 cash.
- He was originally indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)) and possession of a machine gun in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii)).
- Pursuant to a plea agreement, Díaz‑Concepción waived indictment and pled guilty to an information charging possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); the government dropped the drug charge and removed the machine‑gun designation from the firearm count.
- He signed a Stipulation of Facts admitting he possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and acknowledging the factual narrative that matched what police found.
- At the plea hearing the magistrate judge confirmed competency, reviewed the plea agreement and factual proffer (government summarized proof), and the defendant affirmed the facts and that he understood and was pleading guilty to the § 924(c) charge.
- The district court accepted the plea, sentenced Díaz‑Concepción to 8 years (within the parties’ 7–10 year recommendations), and this appeal followed challenging the voluntariness/validity of the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court violated Rule 11(b)(1)(G) by failing to explain the elements of § 924(c) (including that a predicate drug‑trafficking crime is required) | Díaz‑Concepción: magistrate did not explain that a drug‑trafficking crime (e.g., intent to distribute cocaine) is an element, so his plea was not knowing/voluntary | Government: reading the charge, confirming the written stipulation and factual proffer, and defendant’s admissions satisfied Rule 11; no specific script or detailed element explanation required in ordinary cases | No error: court’s colloquy, the plea agreement/stipulation, and defendant’s acknowledgments satisfied Rule 11; plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether any Rule 11 error (if present) affected substantial rights (plain‑error review) | Díaz‑Concepción: would have likely gone to trial given alleged weakness in proof of intent to distribute | Government: evidence of intent to distribute and nexus to firearm was overwhelming; defendant received large concessions in plea (dropped drug count, removal of machine‑gun allegation) making trial unlikely | No prejudice: ample evidence (cash, packaging, loaded accessible firearm, proximity) and significant plea benefits make it not reasonably probable he would have refused the deal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ramos‑Mejía, 721 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2013) (reading the charge plus factual proffer and defendant’s acknowledgments can satisfy Rule 11)
- United States v. Delgado‑Hernández, 420 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2005) (Rule 11’s core concern is ensuring defendant understands the elements; indictment reading often suffices)
- United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain‑error standard explained for criminal appeals)
- United States v. Urbina‑Robles, 817 F.3d 838 (1st Cir. 2016) (defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty to show prejudice under plain‑error review)
- United States v. Andrade, 94 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 1996) (factors supporting intent to distribute)
- United States v. Peña, 586 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2009) (elements supporting nexus between firearm and drug trafficking; packaging and accessibility are relevant indicators)