# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 31 65

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Jo na th an P. Sim m on s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 8, 2 01 3
Fi le d: Decem

be r 6, 2 01 3 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BOW MAN, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.Jo na th an Si m m on s pl ead ed gu il ty to dr ug an d fir earm of fen se s, an d th e Dis tri ct

Co ur t se nt en ced hi m to two co ns ecu ti ve si xt y -m on th pr is on te rm s. Si m m on s ap pe al s,

ch al le ng in g t he va li di ty of hi s g ui lt y pl ea. W e aff

irm. 1

In Sep te m

be r 20 10

, Si m

m on s was in di ct ed by a gr an d ju r y o n th ree co un ts :

Co un t One ch arg ed th at Si m m on s kn owi ng ly po ss es se d wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e on e

hu nd red or m or e m ari

juan a pl an ts

, a vi ol a t i o n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(B) ;

Co un t Two ch arg ed th at Si m m on s, “ du rin g an d in rel at io n to a dr ug -tr affi ck in g cri m e,

to wit : po ss es si on wit h th e in te nt to di st rib ut e m ari juan a as al le ge d in Co un t One

, di d

kn owi ng ly a n d in te nt io na ll y po ss es s fir earm s,” a vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.

§ 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i ); an d Co un t Thre e ch arg ed th at Si m m on s p o ss es se d th e fir earm s

aft er a pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on , a vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ).

At a Feb ru ary 20 12 ch an ge -o f-p le a he a r i n g, th e pa rti es no ti fie d th e Dis tri ct

Co ur t th at th ey ha d reac he d an or al ag reem en t fo r Si m m on s to pl ead gu il ty to Co un t

One

, m od ifi ed to ch ar g e p o s se ss io n wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e le ss th an on e hu nd red

m ari juan a pl an ts

, an d to Co un t Two. In ex ch an ge , th e go ve rn m en t ag reed to di sm is s

Co un t Thre e at se nt en ci ng

. The pa rti es fu rth er ag reed to joi nt ly reco m m en d th at th e

se nt en ce on th es e ch arg es ru n co nc ur ren tl y wit h a se nt en ce Si m m on s was se rv in g on

an un rel at ed dru g c on vi ct io n.

The go ve rn m en t th en de sc rib ed th e of fen se s to whi ch Si m

m on s was pl ead in g

gu il ty an d th e res pe ct iv e ran ge s of pu ni sh m en t. As rel ev an t, th e go ve rn m en t reci te d

th e Co un t Two ch a r g e as it was st at ed in th e in di ct m en t, na m el y , th at Si m m on s,

In hi s Seco nd Su pp le m en ta l Bri ef (th e fif th co un se le d or pr o se br ie f fil ed on 1

Si m m on s’s be ha lf)

, Si m

m on s co nc ed es th at he rece iv ed pr op er se nt en ci ng cred it fo r th e ti m e he sp en t in cu st od y

. Seco nd Su pp

. Br. at 11

. To th e ex te nt Si mm on s

at te m pt s to rai se a ne w arg um en t reg ard in g th e cal cu la ti on of hi s se nt en ce, we refu se

to co ns id er it

. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. McLai n, 70 9 F.3 d 11 98

, 12 00 n.1 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (n ot in g t ha t cl ai m s n ot rai se d i n a n o pe ni ng bri ef ar e d eem ed waiv ed ).

-2

-“ du rin g an d in r e l a ti on to ” th e dr ug -tr affi ck in g cri m e ch arg ed in Co un t One

, “ di d

kn owi ng ly an d in te nt io na ll y po ss es s fir earm s.” Tr. of Ch an ge of Pl ea Hr’g at 4. The

go ve rn m en t al s o s u mm ari zed th e ev id en ce it wou ld ha ve pr es en te d at tri al

. Law

en fo rcem en t of

fic ers ex ecu ti ng a warra nt on an un rel at ed dr ug ch arg e arre st ed

Si m m on s at a Kan sa s Ci ty res id en ce an d ob se rv ed nu m ero us po tt ed pl an t s in th e

ba se m en t whi le co nd uc ti ng a pr ot ect iv e s w e e p of th e res id en ce. The of fic ers

ob ta in ed a se arch warra nt fo r th e res id e n ce an d th erea fte r reco ve red 11 9 m ari juan a pl an ts an d th ree fir earm s. The go ve rn m en t al so st at ed th at in a la te r in te rv ie w,

Si m m on s ad m it te d th at he po ss es se d th e m ari juan a pl an ts se iz ed fro m th e res id en ce;

th at he tra ffi ck ed co cai ne fro m Kan sa s Ci ty, Kan sa s, to Co lu m bi a, Mi ss ou ri; th at he

po ss es se d or own ed th e t h r e e g un s fo un d in th e res id en ce; an d th at he ha d “ bo ug ht
[th e th ree gu ns ] fo r ho m e pr ot ect io n

. . . r eg ard in g th e co cai ne tra ns act io ns .” Id . a t

15

. W he n qu es ti on ed by th e co ur t

, S i mm on s co nf irmed th at th e go ve rn m en t’s

su m m ary “ so un d[ ed ] li ke wha t ha pp en ed th at da y ,” id

. at 16

, an d rep eat ed ly ad m it te d

th at he ha d k no win gl y

an d i nt en ti on al ly pos se ss ed th e th ree g un s, i d. at 17 –1 8.

The co ur t th erea fte r acce pt ed Si m m on s’s gu il t y pl eas to Co un t One

, as

m od ifi ed

, an d Co un t Two an d or de red pr ep arat io n of a pr es en te nc e rep or t (PSR ). As

rel ev an t, th e PSR st at ed th at Si m m on s ha d “ad mi t t e d th at th e ha nd gu ns reco ve red

fro m hi s res id en ce were bo th own ed an d pu rch as ed by hi m ” an d th at “ he own ed th em

fo r ho m e pr ot ect io n, si nc e he was bu y in g co cai ne fro m de al ers .” PSR ¶ 11

. Si m m on s

di d no t ob ject to th is po rti on of th e PSR. In ad di ti on , th e PSR no te d th at by pl ead in g

gu il ty to Co un t One

, as m od ifi ed to refl ect fewer th an 10 0 m ari juan a pl an ts

, Si m

m on s

ha d av oi de d th e st at ut or y im pr is on m en t ran ge of 60 –4 80 m on th s ap pl ic ab le fo r 10 0

or m or e m ari

juan a pl an ts

, 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(B) (v ii ); the ad vis or y U

. S. Sen te nc in g

Gui de li ne s ran ge of 18 8– 23 5 m on th s fo r t h e g reat er dr ug am ou nt

, se e PSR ¶ 66
(d es cri bi ng Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng ran ge of 18 8– 23 5 m on th s fo r Tot al Offen se Lev el

of 31 an d Cri m in al His to ry Cat eg or y of VI); an d a m ax im um po ss ib le se nt en ce of 12 0

m on th s o n t he di sm is se d C ou nt Thre e, 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (a)( 2)

.

-3

-At th e Sep te m be r 20 12 se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e Dis tri ct Co ur t no te d, an d

Si m m on s ag reed

, th at on “ Co un t Two, [Si m m on s] pl ed gu il ty to be in g in po ss es si on

of fir earm s du rin g a dr ug -tr affi ck in g cri m e.” Tr. of Sen t. Hr’g at 2– 3. The co ur t th en

tu rn ed to a pr o se m ot io n th at Si m m on s ha d fil ed se ek in g to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea

be cau se , in pe rti ne nt pa rt, de fen se co un se l ha d “ fai le d to reco gn iz e th e cru ci al erro r

in [th e] in di ct m en t, th is be in g th e im pr op er wor di ng of Co un t Two.” Id

. at 5.

Si m m on s ex pl ai ne d th at hi s pl ea was no t va li d be cau se he ha d m is un de rs to od Co un t

Two an d th at at th e ti m e of hi s pl ea, he was un aware of th e erro r in th e i n di ct m en t.

Id

. at 9– 11

. Dur in g a le ng th y di sc us si on of Si m m on s’s m ot io n , th e go ve rn m en t

in fo rm ed th e co ur t th at it ha d co ns id ered “ fil [in g] a m ot io n

. . . ag reei ng to al lo w hi m

to wit hd raw hi s pl ea,” rei ns ta ti n g t h e o rig in al th ree Co un ts of th e in di ct m en t, an d

th ereb y su bjec ti ng Si m

m on s to th e po te nt ia l pr is on te rm s de sc rib ed ab ov e. Id

. at 17

. The Dis t r i c t C o u r t th en ad dr es se d Si m m on s, no ti ng th at it

, to o, ha d co ns id ered

al lo win g h im

to wit hd raw h is gu il ty ple a “ an d we’ ll go to tri al an d t he who le th in g.

And

. . . if we wen t to tri al an d a jury ag reed th at y ou ha d th e 11 9 pl an ts an d y ou ha d

al l th es e weap on s, y ou r Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne ran ge st a r t s a t ab ou t 18 0 m on th s,

do es n’t it ? ” Id

. at 18

. Si m m on s ack no wled ge d th at he face d th is po te nt ia l se nt en ci ng

ex po su re, an d whe n th e co ur t t h e n o b s e rv ed th at wit hd rawi ng th e gu il ty pl ea an d

go in g to tri al “ do es n’t s ou nd ve ry wis e to m e,” Si m m on s ag reed an d st at ed th at “ in

li gh t of th e co m

m en ts th at [th e go ve rn m en t] jus t made, I wou ld li ke to te ll y ou , I

ap pr eci at e [ t h e g o v e r nm en t] no t fil in g th at m ot io n.” Id

. The co ur t th en de ni ed

Si m m on s’s req ue st to wit hd raw h is gu il ty p le a an d im po se d two co ns ecu ti ve si xt y

m on th se nt en ces to ru n co nc ur ren tl y wit h a se nt en ce Si m m on s was al read y

ser vi ng

on th e u nr el at ed dru g c ha rg e.

On ap pe al

, Si m

m on s fir st arg ue s th at be ca u s e Co un t Two of th e in di ct m en t

m is st at ed th e el em en ts of § 9 24 (c) a nd be cau se th e Dis tri ct Co ur t fail ed to pr op erl y

in fo rm hi m of th e el em en ts of th e of fen se as req ui red by Ru le 11

, hi s gu il ty pl ea was

in va li d an d he sh ou ld be “ pe rm it te d to wit hd raw hi s pl ea of gu il ty to Co un t [Two].”

Seco nd Su pp . B r. of App el la nt at 22 ; se e Uni te d St at es v. Tod d, 52 1 F.3 d 89 1, 89 5

-4

-(8 th Cir . 20 08 ) (n ot in g t ha t a cha ll en ge to an in di ct m en t i s wai ve d b y a va li d g ui lt y pl ea). Si m

m on s di d no t rais e hi s Rul e 11 arg um en t befo re th e Dis tri ct Co ur t, so we

rev ie w on ly fo r pl ai n erro r. See Uni te d Stat es v. Von n, 5 35 U.S. 55 , 58 –5 9 (2 00 2)

. Und er th is st an da rd

, Si m

m on s m us t sh ow no t on ly th at th e Dis tri ct Co ur t co m m it te d

a pl ai n erro r in co m

pl y in g w i t h R u l e 1 1, bu t al so th at an y su ch erro r affe ct ed hi s

su bs ta n t i a l r i g h ts

. A Ru le 11 vi ol at io n “ affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s on ly whe re th e

de fen da nt sh ows a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y t h a t b u t fo r th e erro r, he wou ld no t ha ve

en te red a gu il ty ple a.” To dd , 52 1 F .3d at 8 96

.

As no te d ab ov e, Co un t Two of th e in di ct m en t ch arg ed th at Si m m on s “ di d

kn owi ng ly an d in te nt io na ll y po ss es s fir earm s” “ du rin g an d in r e la ti on to a

dr ug -tr affi ck in g cri m e.” Sect io n 92 4( c), ho wev er, ap pl ie s to an y pe rs o n w ho (1 )

“ us es or carr ie s a fir earm ” “ du rin g an d in rel at io n to an y

. . . dr ug tra ffi ck in g cri m e”

or (2 ) “ po ss es se s a fir earm ” “ in fu rth eran ce of an y su ch cri m e.” 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c).

The go ve rn m en t co nc ed es th at th e in di ct m en t was de fect iv e an d sh ou ld ha ve ch arg ed

Si m m on s wit h po ss es si ng fir earm s “ in fu rth eran ce of ” a dr ug -tr affi ck in g of

fen se

. 2

Su pp . B r. of

App el le e at 10 . And we ag ree wi th Si m m on s th at be cau se th e Dis tri ct

Co ur t di d no t accu rat el y in fo rm hi m o f t h e e l e men ts of th e § 92 4( c) of fen se at th e

ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng , th e co ur t vi ol at ed Ru le 11 of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al

Pro ced ur e. See Fed

. R. C r i m. P

. 1 1( b) (1 )(G) (in st ru ct in g th at a di st ric t co ur t m us t

O nc e ag ai n, we fin d ou rs el ve s ex pe nd in g co ns id erab le jud ic ia l res ou rc e s 2

r e s o l v i n g th is co nf

la ti on is su e whe n it co ul d ha ve be en av oi de d al to ge th er if th e la ng ua ge in Co u n t Two of th e in di ct m en t ha d care fu ll y ad he red to th e st at ut or y la ng ua ge of § 92 4( c). Thi s is no t, as th e go ve rn men t arg ue s, “ a vi rtu al ly

im pe rcep ti bl e di st in ct io n” or a “ se e ming ly m et ap hysic al di st in ct io n.” Su pp

. Br. of App el le e at 15

, 8; se e Uni te d St at es v. Gam bo a, 43 9 F

. 3 d 79 6, 80 9– 10 (8 th Ci r.) (n ot in g th at pr oo f fo r an “ in fu rth eran ce of” char ge un de r § 92 4( c) dif fers fro m th at
f o r a “ du rin g an d in rel at io n to ” ch arg e), cert

. de ni ed

, 54 9 U.S. 10 42 (2 00 6 )

. A c co rd in gl y , we ag ai n cau ti on th e go ve rn m en t ag ai ns t “ co nf la t[i ng ] t h e t w o al te rn at iv e of

fen se s de fin ed in § 92 4( c).” Uni te d Stat es v. Todd

, 52 1 F.3 d 89 1, 89 5 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ).

-5

-in fo rm th e de fen da nt of “ th e na tu re of each ch arg e to whi ch ” he is pl ead in g be fo re

acce pt in g a gu il ty ple a). Acco rd in gl y , Sim m on s h as sh own an erro r th at was p la in

. Bu t to ob ta in rel ie f, he m

us t al so sh ow a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at bu t fo r th e erro r,

he wou ld no t h av e en te red a gu il ty ple a.

Si m m o n s a r g u e s th at th e go ve rn m en t co ul d no t pr ov e th at he po ss es se d th e

fir earm s in fu rth eran ce of his drug -tr affi ck in g act iv it y in vi ol at io n of § 92 4( c) be cau se

th e fir earm s reco ve red at th e res id en ce were lo ck ed in a sa fe. Acco rd in g to Si m m on s,

th e go ve rn m en t th eref

or e co ul d no t ha ve es ta bl is he d th e req ui si te ne xu s be twee n th e

fir earm s an d t he dru g- tra ffi ck in g a ct iv it y , a nd ha d th e co ur t co m pl ie d wi th Ru le 11
by pr op erl y in fo rmi n g h i m o f th e el em en ts of th e § 92 4( c) ch arg e, he wou ld ha ve

reco gn iz ed th is sh or tc om in g in th e go ve rn ment ’s cas e an d wou ld ha ve pu t th e

go ve rn m en t t o i ts bu rd en of p ro of at t ria l.

To be su re, ev id en ce of “ si m ul ta ne ou s po ss es si on of dr ug s an d

. . . fir earm [s ]”

is

, by it se lf, in su ffi ci en t to su st ai n a co nv ic ti on fo r po ss es si ng a fir earm in fu rth eran ce

of dr ug -tr affi ck in g act iv it y

. Uni te d St at es v. Ham il to n, 33 2 F.3 d 11 44

, 11 50 (8 th Ci r.

20 03 ). In st ead

, th e go ve rn m en t m us t es ta bl is h a ne xu s be twee n th e po ss es si on of th e

fir earm an d th e dr ug -tr affi ck in g of fen se

. I d

. Th i s ne xu s m ay be es ta bl is he d, fo r

ex am pl e, whe n a f

i rear m an d dr ug s are di sc ov ered in cl os e pr ox im it y “ so as to

su pp or t an in fere nc e th at th e fir earm is fo r th e pr ot ect io n of th e dr ug s.” Uni te d St at es

v. Sad dl er, 53 8 F.3 d 87 9, 88 8 (8 th Ci r.) (ci ta ti on to qu ot ed cas e om it te d)

, cert

. de ni ed

, 55 5 U.S. 10 88 (2 00 8)

. In th is cas e, ho wev er, no su ch in fere nc e is r e q ui red

. Alt ho ug h th e go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce di d no t sh ow th at th e dr ug s and fir earm s were

in cl os e pr ox im it y whe n th ey were di sc ov ered an d se iz ed

, Si m m on s ad m it te d th at he

po ss es se d t h e fir earm s sp eci fic al ly to pr ot ect th e dr ug s he ke pt at th e res id en ce.

PSR ¶ 11 (s ta ti ng th at Si m m on s ad m it te d th at “ he own ed [th e fi r earm s] fo r ho m e

pr ot ect io n, si n c e h e was bu y in g co cai ne fro m de al ers ”); Uni te d St at es v. Paz, 41 1

F.3 d 90 6, 90 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ Fact s pr es en te d in a PSR are de em ed ad m it te d un le ss

th e de fen da nt ob

jects to th os e fact s.”) ; Tr. of Ch an ge of P le a Hr’g at 15 (d es cri bi ng

-6

-Si m

m on s’s ad m is si on th at he bo ug ht th e fir earm s “ fo r ho m e pr ot ect io n

. . . reg ard in g

co cai ne tra ns act io ns ”).

Mo reo ve r, whe n th e co ur t an d th e go ve rn m en t ad dr es se d Si m m on s reg ard in g

th e co ns eq ue nc es of wit hd rawi ng hi s gu il ty pl ea, na m el y , th at th e go ve rn m en t wou ld

rei ns ta te th e or ig in al th ree ch a r g e s an d Si m m on s wou ld face a Gui de li ne s “ ran ge

st art [in g] at a bo ut 18 0 m on th s,” S im m on s ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t it wou ld no t be “ ve ry

wis e” to wit hd raw hi s pl ea an d ex pr es se d rel ie f th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d no t co nc ed ed

to hi s m ot io n to wit hd raw an d refi le d th e o r i g in al ch arg es

. Tr. of Sen t. Hr’g at 18

. And ev en no w, Si m

m on s do es no t se ek to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea in it s en ti ret y

. Rat he r, he se ek s o n l y t o w i t hd raw hi s pl ea to Co un t Two, th ereb y av oi di ng th e

co ns eq ue nc es of hi s gu il ty pl ea to Co un t Two bu t ret ai ni ng th e be ne fit s of hi s gu il ty pl ea to th e red uc ed ch arg e un de r Co un t One an d th e go ve rn m en t’s di sm is sa l of Co un t

Thre e. See Tod d, 52 1 F.3 d at 89 7 (s ta ti ng th at un d e r t he pl ai n- erro r ru le in th e

co nt ex t o f a Ru le 11 vi ol at io n, a d efen da nt m us t s ho w a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at

he wou ld ha ve rel in qu is he d t he be ne fit s o f hi s p le a ag reem en t an d st oo d tri al on al l

co un ts ch arg ed in th e o rig in al in di ct m en t).

In su m , we co nc lu de th at Si m m on s ha s no t sh own a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at

he wou ld ha ve de cl in ed t o p l e a d g ui lt y , rel in qu is he d th e su bs ta nt ia l be ne fit s of hi s pl ea ag reem en t, an d in si st ed on pr oc eed in g to tri al on al l th ree or ig in al Co un ts of th e

in di ct m en t ha d th e co ur t accu rat el y ad vi se d hi m of th e el em en ts of th e § 92 4 vi ol at io n

ch arg ed in Co un t Two. Acco rd in gl y , Si m m on s is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f, an d we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e Dis tri ct Co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-