USA v. Frank Sesma-Bague

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11315
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20866-FAM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANK SESMA-BAGUE,
a.k.a. Frank Sesma,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 3, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11315 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Frank Sesma-Bague appeals his conviction and mandatory minimum 120-
month sentence, imposed after he pled guilty to one count of conspiring to
distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846
and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). Sesma-Bague contends the district court erred by failing to
sua sponte order a competency hearing and by finding Sesma-Bague ineligible for
“safety-valve” relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). After review,1 we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to sua sponte order a
competency hearing for Sesma-Bague. Although the record indicates that Sesma-
Bague suffers from mental health issues, nothing in the record suggests that
Sesma-Bague was incompetent to plead guilty. See Wingo, 789 F.3d at 1234–35
(quoting Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171 (1975)) (citations omitted)
(“Competence to proceed to trial or to enter a guilty plea requires the defendant to
possess the ‘capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against
him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense.’”). The district
court questioned Sesma-Bague during his change of plea colloquy and held that
Sesma-Bague was competent to plead guilty, calling Sesma-Bague “intelligent and
alert.” Sesma-Bague’s statements at his sentencing hearing also indicate that
Sesma-Bague both understood the charges against him and in fact assisted his
1 We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s failure to sua sponte order a hearing
on the defendant’s competency. United States v. Wingo, 789 F.3d 1226, 1236 (11th Cir. 2015).
We review for clear error a district court’s findings of fact and subsequent denial of “safety-
valve” relief. United States v. Camacho, 261 F.3d 1071, 1073 (11th Cir. 2001).
Case: 15-11315 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
counsel’s defense. Finally, the record is bereft of any opinion, medical or lay,
questioning Sesma-Bague’s competence. Compare, e.g., Wingo, 789 F.3d at 1237
(“At least three medical doctors expressed serious doubts about Wingo’s
competence.”). Under these facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
failing to sua sponte order a competency hearing.
The district court did not clearly err in holding that Sesma-Bague failed to
meet his burden of proving his entitlement to “safety-valve” relief. United States
v. Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d 82, 88 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted) (“[18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f)(2)] requires the defendant to show that he did not use violence or
credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon . . . in
connection with the offense.”). Although Sesma-Bague contended that the gun he
showed to undercover agents was not real, both agents—one of whom held the
gun—testified otherwise. The district court was entitled to credit the testimony of
the agents over that of Sesma-Bague and conclude that the gun was real. See
United States v. Pham, 463 F.3d 1239, 1244 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted)
(“We afford substantial deference to the factfinder, in this case, the district court,
in reaching credibility determinations with respect to witness testimony.”).
Likewise, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Sesma-Bague’s
selling methamphetamine while contemporaneously possessing the gun constitutes
use in connection with the offense, particularly given testimony that Sesma-Bague
Case: 15-11315 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
planned to use the gun to deter other drug dealers from invading his territory. See
Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d at 96 (emphasis in original) (“[T]he presence of a gun
within a defendant’s dominion and control during a drug trafficking offense
ordinarily will suffice to show possession during and in relation to the offense and,
therefore, that the defendant possessed the firearm in connection with the
offense.”).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-11315 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --