The Honor able Kathleen M. O’Ma lley , United S tates District Court J udg e for the Northe rn * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation. At oral a rg ument, Choate’s c ounsel informed the panel that state laborator ies, in fac t, tested 1 the substance and fo u n d it to be methamphetamine, not coc aine. Ne ither Choate nor the United States moved to supplement the re cord to include the state labor atory results, and we do not base our op ini on on the ou tc ome of

the se te sts
. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0608n.06 F iled: August 21, 2007 No. 06-5213 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. GARY L EE CHOATE, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

Before: ROG ERS, COOK, Circ uit Jud ges; O’M ALLEY, District Judge * RO GERS, Circ uit Jud ge. I n 2001, Gar y L ee Choate enter ed a guilty plea be fore a Tenne ssee judg e t o p o s s es s i on of a Sche dule I Idrug on the condition that a state la boratory later conduct tests to conf

irm that the substance that authorities found in Choate’s possession wa s in fact
coca ine. Ther e is no evidenc e in the rec ord, howeve r, that any laboratory conducte d the promised tests, and Choate did not cha llen ge h is state conviction in state cour t. Four y ear s later, f

eder al 1

au t h o ri t i es c h a r g e d C h o a t e w i t h b ei n g a f el o ni np o s s es s i o nan d

re l i edo nC h o at e’ s s t at e d ru g-No. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 2 - possession guilty

plea to obtain a se ntence enhanc ement under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), resulting in a 10- y ear mi n i m u m sentenc e. I n th is d ir e c t a pp e a l f ro m th e fe lon -i n- po sse ssi on c on vic tio n, Cho a te challeng es his fede ral sentenc e enhanc ement by attacking his state g uilty plea a nd arguing that, give n the state’s f

ailure to satisfy

a condition of the ple a ag ree ment, the plea was involuntary and was not “a prior conviction for a fe lony drug offe nse [that] has bec ome final.” Id . We a ff ir m be c a us e Cho a te has not prese nted suffic ient evidenc e to challeng e his state conviction for pur poses of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b).
BACK GR OUND On May 14, 2001, Choate pleade d g uilty befor e J udg e R. Steve n Be bb of the Criminal Court fo r P o l k C o u n t y i nBe n t o n , T en n es s ee t o Fe l o n y E v ad i n g Ar re s tan d

P o s s es s i o no f S ch edu l e II Dru gs for Resa le, and the state trial cour t sentence d Choate to four y ear s of probation. Be fore the plea w as enter ed, it beca

me clea r that Choate wa s awa iting the re s u l t s of the state la boratory tests on the
s ubstance s that authorities found in Choate’s posse ssion. Choate’s attorney noted, for e x ample, “W e
are enter ing this [guilty ] pl ea subje ct to ever y body ’s agr eeme nt that if in fac t the lab re port comes back in a neg ative fashion then we would do an ame nd[ed] judgme nt and set the c onviction for the substance a side if in fac t the repor t [ came back in a neg ative fa shion] .” JA 48. The state’s attorney responde d, “Absolutely .” JA 48.
After Choate sig ned the plea ag ree ment, the state trial court noted, “You have also indicated b y y o u r s i g n a tu r e t h a ty o uar e p l e a d i n g g u i l t y t o f e l o n y e v a d i n g a n d p o s s e s s i o no f [ a ] S c h e d

u l e IINo. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 3 - drug , which is coc aine, a

nd we ha ve alr eady

hear d that this could be set aside . . . [i ]f it comes back not to be coca ine. I

think y ou probably

believe it is coc aine or

y o u wouldn’t be e ntering the plea, but at any rate it’s my understanding y ou wish to plead guilty today to felony evadingand possession of Schedule I Ifor r esale .” JA 51-52. Choate’s attorney explained to Choate that he w as “e ntering a plea, subject to the lab re port coming back a nd if it’s not drug s y ou will ge t it set aside.” JA 52. Choate then stated that he was ple ading g uilty “subjec t to the lab repor

t.” J A 52. Choate’s attorney then elaborated on Choate’s comments. The attorney noted, “Your

Honor, his real r eluctanc e is he’s not sure wh et h er i t ’s a S chedule I I[drug] or not, and if it comes ba ck something e lse then we will m o d i fy that and fix [ the plea] appropr iately .” JA 52. There is no evidenc e that the laboratory returne d a re port on the substance and Choate did not see k to overturn his plea. On September

13, 2005, a fe dera l gr and jury in the Easter

n District of Tenne ssee indicted Choate on three counts of poss ession with intent to distribute various il leg al drugs, and one count of knowing ly

being in possession of 0.45 caliber Winchester ammunit ion having been “ convicted in court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term excee ding one y ear ,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1) ( felon in possession). On Oc tober 12, 2005, a g rand jury returne d a super seding indictment that included an additional count of knowing ly

being a fe lon in possession of a fire arm (a 0.45 se mi-automatic pistol), in violation of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g )(1)
.No. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 4 - On September

22, 2005, the Gover

nment filed a Notice of I ntent to Use Prior Convictions to Enhance Punishm ent, citing Choate’s S eptember 27, 2004, g uilty plea in the C riminal Court of Polk C ounty , Tenne ssee for possession of coca ine for resa le. Choate objec ted to the Gover nment’s use of the pr ior state convic tion because the state did not conduc t the l aboratory tests that it said that it would conduct. With t he enha nceme nt, Choate was subjec t to a statutory minimum sentenc e of 120 months. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( B)
. On F e br ua ry 6, 20 06 , the fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt re je c te d Ch oate ’s c oll a te ra l a tta c k o n h is s ta te ple a . T he dis tr ic t c ourt

no te d th a t Ch oate ra ise d a n “ int e re sti ngqu e sti on ” and ma de a “ le g iti ma te point” in challeng ing the state convic tion. J A 70. Neve rtheless, Choate had not soug ht to set aside his state court plea , and the “conviction is still there . I t has not been se t aside.” JA 74. After the fede ral district c ourt reje cted Choate’s objection, Choate pleade d g uilty to possessing f

ive g rams or
mor e of me tha mph e tamin e wi th i nte nt t o d ist ri bu te in v iol a tio n o f 21 U. S.C. § 8 41 and kn ow ing ly being a fe lon in possession of 0.45 caliber Wincheste r ammunition, in v i o l at i o n o f 18 U.S .C. § 922(g )(1) . The Go v er n ment ag ree d to dismi ss the rema ining c ounts. Nine day s later, the f eder al district court sentenc ed Choate to 120 months of imprisonment to run concur rently on eac h of the two counts for w hich Choate plea ded g uilty , and eig ht y ear s of supervised rele ase, and it impos ed
an a sse ssm e nt o f $ 20 0. On F e br ua ry 7, 20 06 , Ch oate fi le d h is n oti c e of a pp e a l.
AN AL YSI S
I. Choate’s Only Avenue to Challenge His Conviction Is 21 U.S .C. § 851(c )No. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 5 - Choate ca n collater ally

attack his state c onviction only pursuant to t he proc edure s contained in 21 U. S
. C
. § 8 51(c) . To establish the existence of pr ior convictions for pur poses of sente ncing
e nh anc e me nts un de r 2 1 U. S.C. § 85 1( c ), the Un ite d St a te s A tto rn e y mus t f ile an in fo rm a tio n w ith the cour t (and ser ve a c opy on the opposing party

) “stating in w riting the pre vious convictions to be relied upon.” 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) . The defenda nt then has a c hance to affir m or deny the pre vious conviction, 21 U.S.C. § 851(b), and ma y alleg e that the c onviction “ was obtained in violation of the Con sti tut ion

of the Un ite d St a te s” by

pro vi di ng “the f

a c tua l ba sis [fo r s uc h a lle g a tio ns ] wit h particula rity ,” 21 U.S.C. § 851(c) (2). The defe ndant has “ the burde n of proof by a pre pondera

nce of the e vidence on any

issue of fa ct,” id. , and must ch al l eng e the c onviction within five y ear s, 21 U.S.C. § 851(e). In Custis v. United States , 511 U.S. 485, 492 (1994), the Supreme Court noted that “C o n gre s s i n t en d edt o au t h o ri z e c o l l at er al at t ac k s o np ri o r c o n v i ct i o n s a t t h e t i m e o f s en t en ci n g” under 21 U .S.C. § 851(c). In this case, the U nited States Attorney ’s Offic e, the def endant, a nd the district court followed the appropr iate proc edure s.
Th e Con sti tut ion

do e s n ot pr ov ide Cho a te wi th a dd iti on a l ave nu e s to c ha lle ng e his pr ior state conviction. Choate place s too muc h relianc e on this court’s de cision in Un ite d S tat es v . M c Gl oc k lin , 8 F. 3 d 1 0 3 7 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 3 ) (e n b an c) , t o ar gu e th at t h er e ar e gre at er co n s t i tu t i o n al ri gh t s t o ch al l en ge a prior state conviction. I n Mc Gl oc k lin , this c ourt dec ided “whe ther a defe ndant may

challeng e at sentenc ing a

prior state c onviction not previously ruled inval i d which would re sult in a longe r sentenc e if include d within the [ fede ral] sentencingg uideline ca lculus.” 8 F .3d at 1038. The c ourt noted that the Supreme Court ha d not a ddresse d the issue, id. at 1 0 4 0 , d i s t i n gu i s h ed“ach al l en geNo. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 6 - to a conviction for purposes of excluding it f rom consideration at se ntencing ” fr o m “a ful l-blown collater al attac k,” id. a t 10 42 , and c on c lud e d th a t un de r c e rt a in l imi te d c ir c ums tanc e s “ it i s w ith in
a se nte nc ingc ourt ’s dis c re tio n to e nte rt a in a c ha lle ng e to t

he inc lus ion

of a pr ior state c on vic tio n in
a cr iminal hist ory

score ,” id. at 1044.
To the e xten t th a t Mc Gl oc k lin c re a te d p ro te c tio ns g re a te r t ha n th os e a ff

or de d in 21 U. S.C. 85 1( c )( 2) , this c ou

rt he ld t hat “ Mc Gl oc k lin has bee n superse ded,” United States v. Bonds , 48 F.3d 184, 186 (6th Cir. 1995), and , under Custis v. United States , 511 U.S. 484 (1994), the Constitution does not requir e that def

endants be aff

orded a n opportunity to attack c ollatera lly the validity

of prior state convictions for pur

poses of sente nce e nhance ment, Bonds , 4 8 F. 3 d at 1 8 6 (c i t i n g United States

v . S mi th , 36 F.3d 490, 492 (6th Cir. 1994) ), absent a showing that the def

endant did not have counsel at the prior state proceeding
. “In other words, a defenda nt may collater ally

attack a prior convic tion used for purposes of se ntence enhanc ement only if (1) such attack is provided by statute, or (2) such attack is a constitutional one premised on a lack of counse l.” United States v. Re ed , 141 F.3d 644, 652 (6th Cir. 1998)
. Since Choate ha d counsel duringthe Tenne ssee pr ocee dings, the only avenue available to Choate to challeng e his prior c onviction is through 21 U.S.C. § 851(c)
. II. Choate F ailed To Attack Successful ly His Con viction Under 21 U.S.C. § 851(c )
The district cour

t properly reje cted Choate’s attack on his previous state conviction. When a def endant c ollatera lly

attacks a prior state c onviction, the defe ndant must satisfy his or her bur den of provingthe invalidity

of the c onviction. W

alker , 1 60 F .3 d at 109 5; 21 U. S.C. 85 1( c )( 2) . Ch oateNo. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

This is not t o say

that fede ral c ourts mu st ignore a state’ s disreg ard of all conditions 2 subsequent in plea a g ree ments. I f the state’ s failure to fulfill a condition subsequent shows that the state obtai n ed t h e p l ea thr oug h fra ud or deliber ate de ception, a ve ry differ ent ca se would be prese nted. - 7 - is unable to d o s o in

th is c a s e , f

ir s t, b e c a u s e th e c o n v ic ti o nit s e lf

w a s v a li d

s u b je c t t o a c o n d it ion
su bs e qu e nt t

hat di d n ot o c c ur

in t his c a se and , s e c on d, be c a us e Cho a te kn ow ing ly

e nte re d a g uil ty plea to a cha

rg e of c riminal possession, even if he was not entire ly sure of the exact nature of the substance that he possessed.
As a pr e lim ina

ry ma tte r, Cho a te do e s n ot s e t f or th a fa c tua l ba sis wi th p art ic ula ri ty to
e sta bli shtha t hi s p le a “ wa s ob ta ine d in vio la tio n of the Con sti tut ion of the Un ite d St a te s. ” 21 U. S.C. § 851(c) (2). Choate mere ly alleg es that state of

ficials promised to test the s ubstance s that authorities obtained in Choate’s posse ssion but did not later do so. Of note, Choate doe s not establish a fac tual ba sis wi th p art ic ula

ri ty that st a te of

fi c ia ls f ra ud ule ntl y pr omi se d to te st t

he su bs tanc e s o r k

no wi ng ly lied to the court and to Choate to induc e him to enter a g uilty plea. That is, this case is a bout t he state’s a lleg edly

neg lige nt failure to fulfill its end of the plea a g ree ment; it is not a ca se of f raudule nt i n d u ce m en t
. T h i s d i s t i n ct i o ni s i mp o rt an t b ec au s e 21 U. S
. C
. § 8 5 1 (c )( 2 ) s p ea k s ab o u to b t ai n i n g a conviction i n violation of t he Constituti on. At the time that Choate ente red his plea , the conviction
was va lid, subjec t to a condition subsequent that alleg edly did not occur, a

nd the state’s subse quent failu re t o t est the substance s does not establish that the state, at the time of the plea , obtained Choate’s c onsent in violation of the Constit ution o f t h e United States. Thus, the c onviction was “fina l” for pur

poses of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). 2No. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 8 - The re cord a lso shows that Choate knowing ly enter ed a guilty

plea, a nd his convicti o n, there fore , was not “ obtained in violation of the Consti tution.” “A g uilty plea is involuntary

wher e the defe ndant lacks knowledg e of an element of the offe nse require d for conviction and ther efor e does not understa

nd the nature of the c harg e ag ainst him, or does not understand the nature of the constitutional rights he is wa iving.” United States v. Layne , 192 F.3d 556, 577 ( 6th Cir. 1999). To de te rm ine wh e the r t

he de fe nd ant h a d s uf

fi c ie nt kn ow le dg e to e nte r t he ple a , th is c ourt

c an lo ok to the transc ripts of the proc eeding s.
Her e, the e vidence shows that Choate knowingly enter ed a g uilty plea even though he mig ht hav e b e e n u n s u r e o f th e e xa c t n a tu r e o f th e s u

b s ta n c e s th a t a

u th o r it ie s f

o u n d in h is possession. Choate sig ned a Plea of Guilty form bef ore a ppear ing be fore the Tenne ssee c riminal court in which he admitted to possessing illega l drug s. Although Choate did not know the specific ty pe of drugthat authorities found in poss ession (it appea rs t hat he has a pattern of posse ssing a varie ty of drug s), he did not challeng e the c ourt’s asse rtion that he “pr obably believe[d] [ the substance ] i s coca ine or y ou
wo uld n’ t be e nte ri ng the ple a ,” JA 63 , or his a tto rn e y ’s su g g e sti ngthat it “ wo uld have be e n Sc he du le I I I .” JA 76. (Under Te nnessee law, Schedule I , I I , I I I , o r I V p o s s es sion is a felony drug offe nse. Te nn . Co de . A nn . § 39 -1 7- 41 7. ) F ur the rm or e , Choate fa ile d to e xpla in w hy he did no t c ha lle ng e his
c on vic tio n in

state c ou rt , g ivi ng ri se to the inf

e re nc e that Cho a te be lie ve d th a t th e la bo rator y re su lts would have show n that he poss es s ed an illega l substance ( whether coca ine or a

nother illeg al
su bs tanc e ). Thus , h is c on du c t du ri ngand a ft e r t he c ours e of

the ple a dis c us sio n sh ow s that Ch oate
un de rs too d th e e le me nts of the of fe ns e and the natur e of

the c ha rg e a g a ins t hi m.No. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 9 - These f acts distinguish this case from the c ases upon which C hoate r elies. In United States v. Cortez , f

or e xamp le , th e Ni nth Cir c uit he ld t hat a de fe nd ant e nte re d a

n invo lun tary

ple a be c a us e t h e d ef en d an terro n eo u s l y

t h o u gh t at t h e t i m e o f t h e p l ea agr ee m en t t h at h e h ad t h e r i gh tt o b ri n g a selec tive prosec ution claim. 973 F.2d 764, 767-69 (9th Cir. 1992). Her e, there i s no evidenc e that Choate held er ro n eous beliefs about the state’ s promise at the time that he e ntere d the plea or
e r r o n e o u s ly b e li e v e d th a t t h e s u b s ta n c e w a s il le g a l w h e n , in

f a c t, it w a s le g a l. I n Un i ted States v. Ru me ry , th e F if

th C ir c uit he ld that a de fe nd ant d id n ot e nte r a vo lun tary ple a be c a us e his c ouns e l di d
no t a dv ise him

c or re c tly a s to the punis hme nt. 69 8 F.2d 76 4, 76 6- 67 (5 th C ir . 1 98 3) . H e re , in contra st, counsel advised Choate corr ectly at the time of the ple a ag ree ment that the stat e had a n obligation to test t he substance s that authorities found in Choate’s posse ssion.
At or a l argume nt, Cho ate argue d f or the fi rs t ti me that th e di str ic t c ourt vio la te d Ru le 11(b)( 1)(G) of the F eder al Rules of Criminal Procedur e by not finding t h at C hoate’ s plea to the felon-in- possession char g e wa s involuntary
. To support this c laim, Choate relies on United States v. Mc Creary-Re dd , 475 F.3d 718, 725 (6th Cir. 2007) , in w hich this c ourt found that a district c ourt violated Rule 11(b)( 1)(G) when it failed to ask t he defenda nt whether he had the requisite mens rea fo r i nte nt t o d istri bu te . T his c ourt no ted , “th e re is a c le ar d ist inc tio n b e tw e e n p le a din g g uil ty to kn ow ing ly

and int e nti on a lly po sse ssi ng c ra c k c oc a ine ,” wh ic h the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s qu e sti on s c le a rl y established, “and pleading g uilty to know ingly and intentionally possessing c rac k coca ine with t he intent to dist ribute, ” which the di strict court’s que stions did not establish. Id. a t 72 6. As a re su lt, this court vacated the def

endant’ s g uilty

plea in McCreary -Redd . T his c a se dif fe rs fr om McCreary

-No. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 10 - Redd in severa l important respec ts. F irst, the defe ndant in McCreary -Redd , unli ke Cho a te , p ro pe rl y briefe d the issue. See ge nerally, Osborne v . Hartford Li fe and Acc ident Ins. Co. , 465 F.3d 296, 301 (6th Cir. 2001). Second, the de fenda nt in McCreary -Redd d id n o t a d mi t to an element of the offe nse, name ly

the intent to dist ribute an illeg al substance . I n this case, in contr ast, Choate admitted to h a vin g c omm itt e d a

fe lony un de r T e nn e sse e la

w b y po ss essingan il le g a l su bs tanc e a nd

to violating federal law by

possessing a

firea rm afte r a state felony

conviction. For

this reason, the district court did not violate Rule 11(b)( 1)(G) by acc epting Choate’s plea
. F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.