United States v. Ramos-Mejia, 721 F.3d 12

Appellant Ramos-Mejía was indicted in Puerto Rico for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kg or more of cocaine.
He pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 3.5 but less than 5 kilograms, down from the indictment’s 5+ kg charge.
The district court accepted the plea and imposed a 78-month sentence.
The plea agreement contained a waiver-of-appeal provision, but the government does not seek to foreclose appellate review of the plea’s validity.
Ramos-Mejía argues the plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary and that there was no adequate factual basis for the mens rea.
The First Circuit reviews the plea for plain error or lack of a factual basis, considering Rule 11 standards and the surrounding record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the plea knowingly and intelligently entered?	Ramos-Mejía contends the court failed to inform him of the conspiracy mens rea.	Ramos-Mejía asserts lack of understanding of required intent under the plea.	Plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Was there a sufficient factual basis for the mens rea element?	Gov’t facts do not show knowledge of conspiracy or intent to distribute.	Defendant argues the factual basis is inadequate for mens rea.	There was a sufficient factual basis to ground knowledge and intent.
Does the waiver-of-appeal provision bar review of the plea's validity?	Waiver bars appeals challenging the plea.	Waiver does not bar challenges to the plea’s validity.	Waiver does not bar appellate review of plea validity.
Did the Rule 11 colloquy adequately ensure understanding of the charge?	Court’s method of informing defendant was insufficient under Rule 11(b)(1)(G).	Colloquy was adequate given the defendant’s competence and summaries provided.	Colloquy satisfied Rule 11; no defect requiring withdrawal.

United States v. Mercedes Mercedes, 428 F.3d 355 (1st Cir. 2005) (no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea)
United States v. Delgado-Hernández, 420 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2005) (Rule 11 sufficiency and factual basis considerations)
United States v. Ward, 518 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2008) (no rigid script required for Rule 11 colloquy)
United States v. Cruz-Rivera, 357 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2004) (reading the indictment can suffice to show awareness of charge)
United States v. Corporán-Cuevas, 244 F.3d 199 (1st Cir. 2001) (one-size-does-not-fit-all approach to Rule 11 inquiries)
United States v. Jiminez, 498 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2007) (factual basis may be inferred from the record)
United States v. Echeverri, 982 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1993) (conspiracy mens rea can be inferred from evidence)
United States v. Ramirez-Benitez, 292 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2002) (conspiracy participation can be shown by circumstantial evidence)
United States v. Pimentel, 539 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2008) (factual basis need not prove every element beyond reasonable doubt)