Case No: 07-1144 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Charles Smith

The Honorable Gustave Diamond, Senior District Judge for the United*
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by
designation.
1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Case No: 07-1144
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CHARLES SMITH,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Crim. No. 05-CR-432
District Judge: The Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
February 14, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, and SMITH, Circuit Judges,
DIAMOND, District Judge*
(Filed: February 26, 2008 )

-- 1 of 4 --

The District Court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We1
exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
On November 1, 2005, a grand jury returned a ten count indictment against
Charles Smith. On June 24, 2006, Smith executed a plea agreement in which he
agreed to plead guilty to count seven of the indictment and the government agreed
to dismiss the other nine counts of the indictment. Count seven charged Smith
with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) by traveling in interstate commerce with the
intent to engage in illegal sexual conduct. Smith also executed a Statement of
Defendant, which recited his understanding of the charge to which he was going to
plead guilty and the consequences attendant to that plea. On July 21, 2007, Smith
pleaded guilty to count seven and the District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania found that Smith’s guilty plea was made knowingly and voluntarily.
The District Court sentenced Smith on January 5, 2007 to 120 months of
imprisonment. This timely appeal followed.1
Smith contends that his conviction should be vacated because his plea of

-- 2 of 4 --

3
guilty was not made knowingly and voluntarily. Although Smith asserts in his
appellate brief that he moved to withdraw his guilty plea, no such motion appears
on the docket. Accordingly, in the absence of an objection before the District
Court, “we review the adequacy of the plea colloquy for plain error.” United
States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2007).
Smith asserts that his plea was neither knowing nor voluntary. He asserts
that he was confused, pointing out that he only “generally” agreed with the
prosecution’s recitation of the evidence in the case, and that he denied any
improper touching. Smith also contends that his plea was involuntary as a result
of, inter alia, the pressures imposed by his family and his financial limitations.
After a careful review of the record in this case, we conclude that the able District
Judge complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
11(b) and obtained sufficient information from Smith to determine that he was
knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty to the offense charged. Although Smith
may have denied engaging in any improper touching, he did admit that he traveled
in interstate commerce with a teenager with the intention of engaging in sexual
activity. This was sufficient to demonstrate his understanding of the law in light
of the facts, and to establish a factual basis for his plea. Accordingly, we find no
error, plain or otherwise, which would render Smith’s guilty plea infirm.

-- 3 of 4 --

We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 4 of 4 --