United States v. Pedro Pandales-Valencia

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20520
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO MANUEL PANDALES-VALENCIA, also known as Swimmer,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CR-389-5

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Pedro Manuel Pandales-Valencia pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to a single count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
five kilograms or more of cocaine. He was sentenced to 87 months of
imprisonment. On appeal, Pandales-Valencia argues that his guilty plea was
involuntary due to the district court’s failure to properly admonish him
pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 18-20520 Document: 00515442457 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2020

No. 18-20520
2
This court reviews allegations of Rule 11 error raised for the first time
on appeal, such as in this case, for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535
U.S. 55, 59 (2002). To establish plain error, Pandales-Valencia must show (1) a
forfeited error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial
rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To show that a Rule
11 error affected his substantial rights, a defendant “must show a reasonable
probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United
States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). If the defendant makes
such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error and should do so if
the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
At rearraignment, Pandales-Valencia confirmed that he knew that,
following his conviction, he would be removed from the United States.
However, the district court did not discuss any other possible immigration
consequences of his plea. Although the district court deviated from the
requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(O), Pandales-
Valencia was advised about the potential immigration consequences he faced
by his written plea agreement, which he acknowledged thoroughly reviewing
and fully understanding with the assistance of his counsel. See United States
v. Cuevas-Andrade, 232 F.3d 440, 444-45 (5th Cir. 2000). Thus, because we
conclude that Pandales-Valencia has failed to demonstrate that he would have
pleaded differently absent the district court’s Rule 11 error, he has not
established plain error. See Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83.
AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-20520 Document: 00515442457 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2020