Rule 11 Plain Error Review and Specialty Rule at Sentencing: United States v. Lucia Gatta

Introduction

United States v. Lucia Gatta (11th Cir. 2025) addresses three interlocking issues in federal criminal practice:

Whether a district judge may inadvertently participate in plea negotiations and still accept a valid guilty plea under Rule 11;
How “plain error” review applies when a defendant raises Rule 11 objections for the first time on appeal; and
Whether, under the “rule of specialty,” a court may consider unextradited conduct in determining a sentence for extradited offenses.

Lucia Gatta, an Italian national indicted in Florida for failure to file tax returns, foreign‐bank‐account reporting violations, tax evasion and naturalization fraud, pleaded guilty to two counts (failure to file returns and naturalization fraud). On appeal, she claimed the district court (1) overstepped its role in negotiating her plea, (2) failed to advise her properly under Rule 11, and (3) improperly considered conduct not covered by the extradition request. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellate court’s per curiam opinion held:

The district court did not plainly err by assisting in drafting or amending the factual proffer during the plea colloquy. Even assuming Rule 11(c)(1) was implicated, Gatta failed to show any effect on her decision to plead guilty.
The order in which the court advised Gatta of her right to remain silent—before or after factual admissions—was not error under Rule 11(b), and no binding precedent deemed it so.
The court’s failure to warn specifically about mandatory denaturalization did not constitute plain error when it gave the general immigration‐consequences warning required by Rule 11(b)(1)(O).
The plea colloquy and signed factual proffer supplied an adequate basis for each element, including materiality in her naturalization fraud charge.
The district court lawfully considered Gatta’s broader course of criminal conduct—though not part of her extradited charges—under the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in United States v. Utsick (2022). The rule of specialty bars punishment for non‐extradited offenses but does not prohibit their consideration in setting the sentence for extradited offenses.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

United States v. Castro (736 F.3d 1308): Holds that to show plain error in plea‐negotiation involvement, a defendant must prove she would have gone to trial but for the judge’s comments.
United States v. Monroe (353 F.3d 1346): Establishes plain‐error review for Rule 11 objections not raised below.
United States v. Curtin (78 F.4th 1299): Explains that, absent clear statutory or Supreme Court guidance, no plain error lies when there is no controlling precedent.
United States v. Dohm (618 F.2d 1169): Distinguished here, since it involved unrepresented defendants and misleading waiver of Fifth Amendment rights outside the plea context.
Maslenjak v. United States (582 U.S. 335): Defines the materiality element in naturalization fraud prosecutions.
United States v. Presendieu (880 F.3d 1228): Describes the “core concerns” of Rule 11—absence of coercion, understanding of the charge and consequences.
United States v. Dominguez Benitez (542 U.S. 74): Requires a “reasonable probability” test to reverse a plea for Rule 11 error.
United States v. Utsick (45 F.4th 1325): Clarifies that the rule of specialty does not bar a sentencer from considering unextradited conduct when imposing punishment for extradited offenses.

2. Legal Reasoning

Plea Negotiations & Rule 11(c)(1): Rule 11(c)(1) forbids district judges from participating in plea‐agreement discussions. The Eleventh Circuit has never held that any judge comment or factual‐basis drafting is plain error absent direct precedent. Here, Gatta neither objected below nor demonstrated she would have rejected the plea but for the judge’s assistance in amending her factual proffer.

Order of Advisements under Rule 11(b): Rule 11(b)(1)(E) and (O) require advising a defendant of the privilege against self‐incrimination and potential immigration consequences, respectively. The court’s colloquy covered both topics—even if in a different sequence—and Gatta affirmed her understanding on the record.

Factual Basis & Materiality: A sufficient factual basis requires “evidence from which a court could reasonably find” guilt on all elements. Gatta signed a detailed proffer covering her nondisclosure of tax offenses, her willful failure to file, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reliance on those statements—satisfying Maslenjak’s materiality standard.

Rule of Specialty at Sentencing: Under Utsick, the rule of specialty bars discrete prosecutions and punishment for crimes not covered by the extradition, but it does not preclude the court from considering those acts when imposing sentence on the extradited offenses. Gatta’s broader evasion scheme thus informed her Guidelines range without violating the extradition order.

3. Impact

This decision offers practical guidance:

Lower courts can modify or clarify factual bases at plea and remedy perceived “bare bones” proffers without risking plain‐error reversal so long as defendants suffer no prejudice.
Rule 11 advisements on constitutional and immigration rights need not follow a rigid order; a general warning suffices absent controlling authority.
Extradition dictates the list of offenses for which a defendant may be “punished,” but not the range of conduct a sentencing court may consider under the Sentencing Guidelines.

Future appeals will likely pivot on whether a defendant can show a “reasonable probability” of a different outcome sans judicial involvement in plea drafting, or an affirmative binding precedent requiring more detailed Rule 11 warnings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Plain Error Review: When a defendant fails to object at trial, she must show a clear (plain) error that likely changed her decision or the trial’s fairness.
Rule of Specialty: If Country A extradites a suspect for Offense X, U.S. courts cannot punish the suspect for Offense Y. They can however look at Offense Y to decide the punishment for Offense X.
Factual Basis: A short document the defendant signs admitting the facts needed for her plea. It need not be an exhaustive narrative but must cover each legal element.
Materiality in Naturalization Fraud: A false statement is “material” if it would have mattered to an immigration official—meaning it could change the decision to grant citizenship.
“Technical Parts” vs. Substance: Defendants sometimes note they don’t understand legal jargon (“technical parts”). As long as they confirm the factual substance in plain language, courts accept the plea.

Conclusion

United States v. Gatta reaffirms two settled principles in the Eleventh Circuit:

Absent direct controlling precedent, a district court’s involvement in plea‐bargaining details—including factual proffer drafting—and the precise order of Rule 11 warnings do not automatically amount to plain error if the defendant cannot show prejudice.
The rule of specialty limits which charges may be prosecuted or punished but does not prevent sentencing courts from considering a defendant’s complete course of criminal conduct when calculating a sentence for the extradited offenses.

These clarifications offer greater predictability to practitioners negotiating pleas and navigating extradition constraints during sentencing.