United States v. Muhammad Raza ( 2015 )

Case: 14-50498 Document: 00512906906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 14-50498
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar January 19, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MUHAMMAD ASIF RAZA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:13-CR-267-1
Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Defendant-Appellant Muhammad Asif Raza challenges his guilty plea
for trafficking in counterfeit goods on the ground that the district court failed
to admonish him, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, that his
testimony could be used against him in a prosecution for perjury and that he
had the right to plead not guilty. We review these objections for plain error
because Raza did not raise them in the district court. See United States v.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 14-50498 Document: 00512906906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2015
No. 14-50498
Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Raza must show an error that is clear or obvious
that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,
135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the
error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation
of judicial proceedings. See id.
We conclude that a violation of the defendant’s substantial rights has
occurred per Rule 11 only if he shows “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). Raza must satisfy us that, in light of the entire
record, “the probability of a different result is sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
Raza does not claim that his substantial rights were affected by the
district court’s failure to advise him that his testimony could be used against
him in a prosecution for perjury, and we find nothing in the record to suggest
that the court’s failure in that regard affected Raza’s decision to plead guilty.
See Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83. Although he does urge “that there is a
reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had he
understood that he had the right to plead not guilty,” the record in its entirety
suggests that Raza, who has a college degree, entered his guilty plea knowing
that he had the right to plead not guilty. In fact, he initially did plead not
guilty. The district court also informed him during his rearraignment that his
guilty plea would waive his right to a jury trial, along with his associated trial
rights, and Raza testified that he understood. In light of the record in its
entirety, we find no reversible plain error. See id.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2