United States v. Ruth Diaz-Burgos, 20-12841

Background

Diaz-Burgos was indicted (Jan 2020) for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute ≥500 grams of methamphetamine; she pled guilty (Mar 2020) without a plea agreement via an interpreter.
At the change-of-plea hearing the court asked her to admit conduct on the counts before addressing all Rule 11 advisements; she answered affirmatively to questions about participating in a conspiracy, possessing drugs, and knowing they were drugs.
The government read a detailed factual proffer: transport of ~21 kg from Atlanta to Miami, Diaz-Burgos delivered a duffel bag, video/audio captured conduct, she waived Miranda and admitted transporting methamphetamine.
She initially said she did not agree with everything in the proffer, the court recessed for review with the interpreter, then defense counsel represented she was in full agreement; the court then engaged in Rule 11 advisements and found her competent despite bipolar disorder and medication.
The district court sentenced her to 90 months (below the statutory 10-year minimum via the safety-valve). Post-sentencing she asserted confusion and ineffective assistance and appealed.
On appeal under plain-error review, Diaz-Burgos argued the court erred in sequencing (eliciting admissions before advising rights) and omitted required Rule 11 information, rendering her plea unknowing and involuntary; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Diaz-Burgos' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Sequencing of colloquy: eliciting admissions before advising Rule 11 rights	Court elicited incriminating admissions before informing her of rights (e.g., right to remain silent), violating Rule 11 and rendering plea invalid	Rule 11 does not mandate a specific order; addressing items before acceptance satisfies the rule; no binding authority shows sequencing error is plain	Court: No plain error — Rule 11 does not require a particular order and no controlling precedent established an error
Omission of specific Rule 11 advisements	Court failed to advise certain enumerated items (e.g., right to persist in plea of not guilty, appointed counsel rule, perjury prosecution, supervised-release max, special assessment), so plea was not knowing	Although some technical omissions occurred, the colloquy substantially covered the three Rule 11 core concerns (voluntariness, nature of charges, consequences) and defendant understood	Court: No plain error — omissions were not a total or near-total failure to address core concerns
Voluntariness/competence given mental illness and language barriers	Mental illness, single-word answers, language issues, and post-sentencing statements show plea may have been involuntary or unknowing	Interpreter was present, defendant said she understood, counsel vouched for competence and voluntariness, and she expressly assented to detailed factual proffer	Court: No plain error — record supports voluntariness and competence; strong presumption attaches to plea colloquy statements
Prejudice / substantial rights (would she have pleaded differently?)	She asserts confusion and ineffective assistance; therefore substantial rights affected and she would have not pled guilty absent errors	No showing of reasonable probability she would have pleaded differently; post-hoc assertions too late and better addressed via collateral review	Court: No plain error — defendant failed to show prejudice or reasonable probability she would have pleaded differently

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Presendieu, 880 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2018) (Rule 11 core objectives and adequacy of plea colloquy analysis)
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005) (preference that courts ask how defendant pleads to each count early in colloquy)
United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003) (plain-error requires explicit statutory/rule language or controlling precedent)
United States v. Bates, 960 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2020) (prejudice standard for showing plea would not have been entered but for error)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) (Rule 11 aims to ensure constitutional validity of guilty pleas)
United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2003) (evaluate plea colloquy on substance, not form; total or near-total failures reversible)
United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185 (11th Cir. 1994) (strong presumption that plea colloquy statements are true)
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. United Steel Workers, 985 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2021) (arguments raised first in reply briefs are forfeited)