## Facts

- Keila Medina-Roman was a Puerto Rico police officer involved with other officers in a conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs.
- The conspiracy included arrangements to transport what participants believed were illegal drugs; firearms were expected to be present during the operation.
- A federal grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico indicted Medina and others on multiple counts, including a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 alleging that Medina aided and abetted the carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime.
- Medina pleaded guilty to the § 924(c) aiding-and-abetting count.
- During the Rule 11 plea colloquy, the district court explained that the count involved a drug-trafficking offense in which firearms were used or carried and that Medina and her husband were aiding and abetting each other; the court also used “bad purpose” language when discussing Medina’s state of mind regarding the firearm.
- The district court did not clearly spell out that aiding-and-abetting liability for the § 924(c) count requires an affirmative act intended to help the firearm carrying, not just knowledge that a gun would be present.
- In her statements at the plea hearing, Medina acknowledged that she knew firearms were part of the plan and that she had discussed the guns with the undercover agent; she also emphasized that she did not personally carry a firearm.
- The record described Medina as escorting and protecting the vehicle driven by her husband, who was carrying a firearm during the drug transaction.
- Medina did not object at the plea hearing to the district court’s description of the charge.
- On appeal, Medina argued her plea was not knowing and voluntary because the Rule 11 colloquy inadequately described the elements of aiding and abetting a § 924(c) offense; because she did not object below, the First Circuit reviewed for plain error under United States v. Vonn.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s Rule 11 colloquy inadequately informed Medina of the nature and elements of aiding and abetting the carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, rendering her guilty plea unknowing or involuntary.
2. Whether any Rule 11 defect was plain error affecting substantial rights, meaning there was a reasonable probability that, but for the error, Medina would not have pleaded guilty.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court recognized the district court’s explanation of aiding-and-abetting liability for the § 924(c) count was imperfect because it did not clearly state the facilitation (affirmative-act) requirement.
- Considering the full record, including Medina’s admissions that she knew a weapon would be taken and her role in escorting and protecting an armed participant, the court concluded Medina understood the substance of the charge.
- Even assuming error that was plain, Medina failed to show prejudice: she did not establish a reasonable probability that a more complete element-by-element explanation would have changed her decision to plead guilty.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 11 requires the district court to ensure a guilty plea is knowing and voluntary, including that the defendant understands the nature of the charge.
- When a defendant does not object to a Rule 11 colloquy at the plea hearing, appellate review is for plain error, and the reviewing court may consider the whole record (United States v. Vonn).
- In the plea context, to show plain error affected substantial rights, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for the Rule 11 mistake, the defendant would not have entered the plea.
- For aiding and abetting a § 924(c)(1) offense, the government must prove (1) the defendant knew to a practical certainty that a firearm would be used or carried during and in relation to the drug-trafficking crime, and (2) the defendant took some affirmative step intended to help or facilitate the firearm’s use or carrying; knowledge alone is insufficient.
- Rule 11 does not require a ritual recitation of every element if the plea proceeding and surrounding record show the defendant understood what the government would have to prove and what conduct the plea admitted.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that although the district court did not clearly articulate the facilitation element of aiding and abetting a § 924(c) offense during the Rule 11 colloquy, the record as a whole showed Medina understood she was admitting participation in a drug-trafficking venture where a firearm would be carried and that her escort/protection role could be treated as helping that firearm carrying; because she could not show a reasonable probability that a fuller explanation would have led her to reject the plea, there was no reversible plain error.


United States v. Medina-Roman, 376 F.3d 1 (2004)