United States v. Luis El Mateo, 20-13658

Background

Mateo participated in a series of armed robberies (13 incidents, May–Nov 2019) and was indicted on Hobbs Act robbery counts and multiple 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) brandishing counts.
He pleaded guilty under a written agreement to four § 924(c) brandishing counts in exchange for dismissal of other counts; he signed a detailed factual proffer describing four November 2019 robberies.
The plea agreement included a restitution provision allowing “all victims of the offenses charged…Counts 1–23” to present claims for restitution.
The PSR recommended restitution based on all charged robberies ($23,046.88) and four special supervised-release conditions; Mateo filed no objection to the PSR and stipulated at sentencing to the restitution amount.
The district court sentenced Mateo to the mandatory minimum four consecutive § 924(c) terms (total 336 months/28 years), ordered $23,046.88 restitution, and imposed a five-year supervised-release term; a written judgment later listed more detailed supervised-release conditions.
On appeal Mateo challenged: (1) the plea colloquy as inadequate on the nature of charges, (2) the restitution order as exceeding authority, and (3) supervised-release conditions added/expanded in the written judgment or insufficiently explained.

Issues

Issue	Mateo's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Adequacy of plea colloquy re: nature of charges	Court failed to ensure he understood elements/nature of § 924(c) charges	Plea colloquy, review of indictment/plea agreement, and detailed factual proffer showed understanding; plain-error standard applies	Affirmed: colloquy adequate; no showing he would not have pled absent any omission
Lawfulness of restitution for victims of unconvicted charged robberies	Restitution illegal because it included victims of robberies not among the four convictions	Plea agreement authorized restitution to all victims of charged offenses; Mateo stipulated to amount; appeal waiver and invited-error doctrines apply	Affirmed: restitution authorized by plea agreement and waived by Mateo’s stipulation
Supervised-release conditions added in written judgment but not orally pronounced	Written judgment added discretionary conditions not pronounced or explained at sentencing	Court orally referenced "standard and mandatory" conditions and PSR; written judgment mirrors PSR/standing order; defendant had opportunity to object	Affirmed: no conflict between oral sentence and judgment; oral ambiguity resolved by written judgment; conditions valid
Adequacy of explanation for discretionary conditions	Court failed to explain why discretionary conditions were warranted under statutory factors	Court applied undisputed facts, PSR recommendations, guidelines, and standing order; Mateo did not identify specific objection or prejudice	Affirmed (plain-error review): no plain error or showing of substantial harm

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Presendieu, 880 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2018) (Rule 11 procedures and three core objectives for plea colloquies)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) (procedural safeguards for accepting guilty pleas)
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain‑error review for Rule 11 defects)
United States v. Bates, 960 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2020) (plain‑error showing that a plea would not have been entered absent error)
United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2003) (focus on substance over form in plea colloquies)
United States v. Schrimsher, 58 F.3d 608 (11th Cir. 1995) (treating counsel’s sentencing statements as admissions re: restitution stipulations)
United States v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 2008) (appeal waiver includes challenge to restitution)
United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2005) (invited‑error doctrine and sentencing challenges)
United States v. Gregg, 179 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 1999) (waiver by expressly agreeing to restitution amount)
United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. en banc 2020) (requiring oral pronouncement or clear incorporation for discretionary conditions)
United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020) (similar rule on oral identification/incorporation of conditions)
United States v. Anstice, 930 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2019) (oral pronouncement requirement for discretionary conditions)
United States v. Purcell, 715 F.2d 561 (11th Cir. 1983) (use written judgment to resolve ambiguity in oral sentencing)
United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2000) (remand to conform written judgment to oral pronouncement when conflict exists)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (reasonableness of explanations at sentencing varies by circumstances)
Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (plain‑error standard requires showing of a reasonable probability of a different outcome)