United States v. Hatem Ataya, 884 F.3d 318

Hatem Ataya, a naturalized U.S. citizen and Michigan physician, pleaded guilty in 2016 to one count of conspiracy to commit health-care and wire fraud; plea agreement included an appellate-waiver clause.
The district court’s Rule 11 plea colloquy omitted several Rule 11(b)(1) advisements: (J) special assessment, (K) restitution, (L) forfeiture, and (O) the generic immigration-warning statement that noncitizens may be removed or denied citizenship/entry.
The plea agreement itself disclosed the financial obligations and Ataya acknowledged reading and understanding it; the appellate waiver was discussed and Ataya confirmed no questions.
Ataya was later sentenced to 97 months’ imprisonment, ordered to pay >$4.1 million restitution, and forfeiture and special assessment were imposed.
On appeal the government moved to dismiss based on the appellate waiver; the Sixth Circuit previously found the waiver knowingly made but reserved whether the plea as a whole was knowing given Rule 11 omissions.
This panel holds the district court’s failure to give the Rule 11(b)(1)(O) immigration-warning was plain error that prejudiced Ataya; because the plea as a whole was infirm, the appellate waiver is unenforceable, the government’s motion to dismiss is denied, the conviction is reversed, and the case remanded.

Issue	Ataya's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether appellate waiver bars appeal	Waiver was not "knowing and voluntary" because the plea as a whole was uninformed due to Rule 11 omissions (esp. immigration warning)	Waiver was knowingly made at colloquy and thus bars appeal	Waiver unenforceable because plea as whole was not knowing; appeal may proceed
Whether district court’s omission of Rule 11(b)(1)(O) was plain error	Omission was unwaived, clear, and prejudicial; reasonable probability he would not have pled if warned about denaturalization	Omission obvious but not prejudicial; Ataya cannot show he would have refused plea but for the omission	Omission was plain error and prejudiced Ataya; third prong satisfied
Whether Rule 11(b)(1)(J),(K),(L) omissions require relief	These omissions undermined knowing plea	Financial obligations were in plea agreement and defendant acknowledged them; no prejudice	No plain error as to J/K/L because plea agreement functioned as safeguard
Standard for assessing prejudice from Rule 11 error	Must show reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have pled (heightened showing for vacating plea)	Same standard; argues Ataya cannot meet it on facts	Applied Dominguez Benitez standard; court finds Ataya met the required reasonable-probability showing regarding immigration warning

Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (plain-error review of Rule 11 errors and obligation to consider whole record)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (four-prong plain-error framework)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pled but for Rule 11 error)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain-error prejudice meaning affecting substantial rights)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (defendant’s contemporaneous evidence and focus on defendant decisionmaking in plea prejudice analysis)
United States v. Ataya, 869 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2017) (prior panel: appellate waiver knowingly made but left open validity of plea as whole)