United States v. Waters ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10715 Document: 00515837698 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 27, 2021
No. 20-10715 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Davin Seth Waters,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CR-93-1
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Davin Seth Waters pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to
transportation of minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. He
was sentenced to life in prison. Waters asserts that his reliance upon
misinformation from the prosecution and defense counsel about the likely
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10715 Document: 00515837698 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2021
No. 20-10715
period of incarceration rendered his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary.
Waters contends that the prosecutor and defense counsel mistakenly
believed that Waters’s admitted conduct in the factual resume with respect
to additional victims would not be taken into account when calculating the
guidelines range and that he would likely be sentenced to approximately 25
years in prison.
Waters did not argue in the district court that his plea was unknowing
or involuntary. Thus, our review is limited to plain error. See United States
v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 F.3d 945, 953 (5th Cir. 2013). To show plain error,
the defendant must initially show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and
that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
(2009).
Here, the record reflects that Waters was advised, and understood,
that he faced a maximum possible penalty of life in prison and that the district
court had sole discretion to determine his sentence. The plea agreement did
not include any specific sentencing guarantees, and Waters affirmed at
rearraignment that his guilty plea was not the result of threats or promises
outside of those promises set forth in the plea agreement. Waters’s “solemn
declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.” United
States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641, 649 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Consequently, Waters has failed to show that
his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary or that the district court
plainly erred in accepting his guilty plea. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; see also
United States v. Gracia, 983 F.2d 625, 629 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v.
Young, 981 F.2d 180, 184 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
2