United States v. Ruben Gonzalez Contreras
697 F. App'x 298
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Ruben Omar Gonzalez Contreras pleaded guilty to attempted enticement of a minor via interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
- He appealed, asserting: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (effectively venue), insufficient factual basis for the plea, and inadequate Rule 11 admonishments about the charge and mandatory minimum sentence.
- Contreras did not object to venue or the Rule 11 issues in district court; those claims were thus waived or reviewed for plain error.
- At rearraignment Contreras admitted traveling to a prearranged location to meet an undercover officer (posing as a minor’s guardian) to engage in illicit sexual activity with the minor, and the magistrate read the indictment and stated a 10-year minimum sentence.
- The district court accepted the plea; Contreras’ appeal challenged venue, the factual basis for the plea, and the adequacy of Rule 11 admonishments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue / subject-matter jurisdiction | Venue improper; offense occurred in Western District, not Southern | Government: venue proper; issue waived by guilty plea and continuous-offense venue applies | Waived by plea; in any event venue proper under continuous-offense rule |
| Sufficiency of factual basis for guilty plea | Plea lacked sufficient factual basis to support § 2422(b) attempted offense | Government: Contreras admitted essential facts at rearraignment | No plain error; admissions provided sufficient factual basis |
| Rule 11 admonishments (nature of charge) | Admonishments were deficient regarding charge | Government: magistrate read indictment and Defendant acknowledged understanding | No plain error; admonishment adequate and no showing of prejudice |
| Rule 11 admonishments (mandatory minimum) | Defendant not properly informed of mandatory minimum | Government: magistrate informed him of 10-year minimum and Defendant acknowledged understanding | No plain error; Defendant failed to show reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty |
Key Cases Cited
- Baeza v. United States, 543 F.2d 572 (5th Cir.) (venue is a personal/technical right that may be waived)
- United States v. Cothran, 302 F.3d 279 (5th Cir.) (guilty plea admits elements and waives non-jurisdictional defects)
- United States v. Rounds, 749 F.3d 326 (5th Cir.) (continuous offense for venue purposes)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Sup. Ct.) (plain-error review standard: affects substantial rights and discretion to correct)
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir.) (plain-error review of Rule 11 and sufficiency when not raised below)
- United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414 (5th Cir.) (admissions at rearraignment can supply sufficient factual basis for plea)