Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20675/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20675-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reginald Mosley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20675

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

REGINALD MOSLEY, also known as Reggo,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-679-6

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reginald Mosley challenges his guilty-plea convictions for: conspiracy to 

commit bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; three counts of bank 

robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a); and discharge of a firearm in 

furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). 

He was sentenced, inter alia, to 525 months’ imprisonment, including a 

consecutive 120-month sentence for his § 924(c) conviction. 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 5, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-20675 Document: 00512888945 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2015
No. 13-20675

Mosley claims the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11 by failing to inform him that this 120-month sentence must be 

imposed consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). Because Mosley did 

not raise this issue in district court, review is only for plain error. United 

States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Under that standard, Mosely must show 

a forfeited plain (clear or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. 

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To establish that his 

substantial rights have been affected, he “must show 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). If he does so, we have the discretion 

to correct the error, but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. 

Pretermitting whether the court committed clear or obvious error by not 

informing Mosley the sentence must be imposed consecutively, Mosley has not 

shown his substantial rights were affected by demonstrating that, but for the 

failure to inform him that this sentence must be served consecutively, he would 

not have pleaded guilty. E.g., Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83. The record 

shows Mosley was advised the sentence for this count must be served 

consecutively, such as his written plea agreement and warnings by the 

magistrate judge during two earlier court appearances. In addition, Mosley 

did not object to the post-plea presentence investigation report’s statement 

that this sentence must be imposed consecutively, or object on this basis at 

sentencing. E.g., United States v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 F.3d 945, 954–55 (5th 

Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 950 (2014). 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-20675 Document: 00512888945 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2015