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: 07a0695n.06 F iled: Septem ber 25, 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 AMENDED

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 aut horities char g ed Choate w ith possession with i ntent to distribute at least 5 g rams ofNo. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 2 - methamphetamine a

nd relied on Choate ’s state drug -p o ssession guilty plea to obtain a se ntence enhanc ement under

21 U.S.C. § 841(b), resulting in a 10-year minimum sentenc e. I n this direct
a pp e a l f rom th e con vic tio n f

or po sse ssi on

wi th i nte nt t o d ist

ri bu te me tha

mph e tamin e , Ch oate challeng es his f

eder al 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 plea ag ree ment, the plea was involuntary and wa s not “a pr ior conviction for a felony 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 sufficie nt e vidence to challeng e his state convic tion for purposes 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 n o f S ch edu l e I IDru 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 ente r e d , it b e c a me c le ar th a t Ch o a te w a s aw a it in g th e r e s u lt s o f th e s tate la b o r a to r y te s ts on the
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 i n Ch o a te ’ s p o s s e s s io n . Ch o a te ’ s a tt o r n e y n o te d , f o r e xa mp le , “ We
are enter ing this [ g uilty ] plea subject 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 a n amend[ed] judgment and se t the conviction 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.No. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 3 - After Choate si g ned the plea ag ree ment, the state trial c ourt noted, “Y ou have a lso indicated b y y o u r s i g n a t u 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 an d

p o s s e s s i o no f

[ a ] S c h e d

u l e II drug , which is coca ine, and we have a lrea dy hear d that this could be set aside . . . [i] f it comes bac k not to be coca ine. I

think y ou probably

believe it is coc aine or

y ou wouldn’t be e ntering the plea, but at any rate it’s my understanding y ou wish to plead g uilty today to felony evadingand possession of Schedule I Ifor r esale .” J A 51-52. Choate’s attorney explained to Choate that he wa s “ente ring 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 elabor ated on Choate’s c omments. The attorne y noted, “Your

Honor, his real r elu ct an ce i s h e’ s not sure whe ther it’s a Sche dule I I[drug] or not, and if it comes ba ck something e lse then we wi l l m o d i fy that and fix [ the plea] appropr iately .” JA 52. There is no evidenc e that the labor atory returne d a re port on the substance a nd Choate did not seek to over turn 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 possession with intent to distribute various illeg al drug s, and one c ount of knowing ly being in posse ssion of 0.45 caliber Winchester ammunition having been “ convicted in court of a

crime punishable by imprisonment f or a term exceeding one y ear ,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1) (felon in possession). On Octobe r 12, 2005, a g rand jury returne d a super seding indictment that included an a dditional count of knowing ly being a felon in possession of a f irea rm (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.No. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 5 - AN AL YSI S
I. Choate’s Only Avenue to Challenge His Conviction Is 21 U.S .C. § 851(c )
Choate ca n collater ally

attack his state conviction only pursuant to the proc edure s contained in 21 U.S.C. § 851(c). To esta bl i s h t h e ex i stence of prior c onvictions for purpose s of sentenc ing
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 de fenda nt then has a c hance to affir m or deny the pre vious conviction, 21 U.S.C. § 851(b), and may alleg e that the conviction “w as obtained in violation of the Co ns ti tu ti on of

the Un ite d St a te s” by

pr ov idi ng“ the fa 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 challeng e the c onvicti o n wi thin five y ear s, 21 U.S.C. § 851(e). In Custis v. United States , 511 U.S. 485, 492 (1994), the Supre me Court noted that

“ C o n g r e 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 at 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 not 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 pl ace s too much reliance on this cour t’s decision in Un ite d Sta te s 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 convic tion. I n Mc Gl oc k lin , this court decided “whether a defenda nt may challeng e atNo. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 6 - sentenc ing a

pri o r s tate convic tion not previously ruled invalid which w ould result in a long er 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 addre ssed the issue, id. at 1 0 4 0 , d i s t i n gu i s h ed “a ch al l en ge to a convict i o n fo r purposes of e x cluding it from considera tion at sentencing ” fr om “a f ull-blown collater al attac k,” id. a t 1042 , an d co nc lud e d tha t unde r ce rt a in limi te d cir c ums tanc e s “it is 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 tha n thos e a ff

or de d in 21 U. S.C. 85 1( c )( 2) , thi s c ourt

he ld t hat “ Mc Gl oc k lin has bee n superse ded,” United St ates 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 validi ty of prior state convictions for purposes of sentenc e enha nceme nt, 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 defe ndant did not have counse l at the prior state proce eding
. “In other wor ds, a def endant may

collater ally

attack a prior convic tion used for purposes of sentenc e enhance ment only if (1) such attack is provided by statute, or (2) such attack is a constitutional one premised on a lack of counsel.” United St ates v. Re ed , 141 F.3d 644, 652 (6th Cir. 1998). Since Choate had counse l 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)
.No. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 7 - II. Choate F ailed To Attack Successful ly His Con viction Under 21 U.S.C. § 851(c )
The district court proper ly reje cted Choate’s attack on his pr evious 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 oate is unable to do so in this case, first, be cause t h e co n v i cti on itself was va lid subject to a condition
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 c harg e of c riminal possession, even if he was not entire ly su re 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 his ple a “ wa s ob ta ine d in v iol a tio n o f t he 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 officia ls pr omised to te st the substances that a uthorities 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 a

nd to Choate to induce him to enter a g uilty plea. That is, thi s case is about the state’s a lleg edly

neg lige nt failure to f

ulfill it s end of the ple a ag ree ment; it is not a case of fr audulent 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 tb ec au s e 2 1 U. S
. C
. § 8 5 1 (c )( 2 ) sp ea k s ab o u to b t ai n i n g a conviction in violation of the Constit ution. At the time tha t Choate enter ed his plea, the conviction
was va lid, subject to a condition subsequent that alleg edly did not occur, a

nd the state’s subse quent failure to test the substances doe s not establish that the state, at the time of th e p l ea , obtainedNo. 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. - 8 - Choate’s c onsent in violation of the Constit ution of the United States. Thus, t h e conviction was “fina l” for pur

poses of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). 2
The re cord a lso shows that Choate knowing ly enter ed a guilty

plea, a nd h is conviction, there fore , was not “obta ined in violation of the Constituti on.” “Ag uilty plea is involuntary

wher e the defendant lac ks knowledg e of a n element of

the offe nse re quired 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 rig hts he is waiving .” 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 k no wl e dg e to e nte r t

he ple a , thi s c ourt

c an lo ok to the transc ripts of the proc eeding s.
Her e, the evidenc e shows that Choate knowing ly enter ed a guilty

plea e ven thoug h he mig ht have b ee n u n s u re of the exact nature of the substanc es that authorities found in his possession. Choate sig ned a Plea

of Guilty form bef ore appea ring befor e the Te nnessee criminal cour t in which he admitted to possessing illega l drug s. Although Choate did not know the specific ty pe of dr ug that authorities found in possession (it appea rs that he has a pattern of possessing 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] is coca ine or y ou
wo uld n’ t be e nte ri ngthe ple a ,” JA 63 , o r h is at tor ne y ’s su g g e sti ng that it “ wo uld have be e n Sc he du le I I I .” JA 76. (Under Te nnessee law, Schedul e I , I I , I I I , o r I V possession is a felony drug offe nse.No. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 9 - Te nn . Co de . A nn . § 39 -1 7- 41 7. ) F ur the rm or e , Ch oate 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 ngri se to the inf

e re nc e that Cho a te be lie ve d that the la bo rator y re su lts would have s h o wn t h at he possesse d an illeg al substance (whe ther c ocaine or anothe r illeg al
su bs tanc e ). Thus , his co nd

uc t dur ing and a ft e r the c ours e of the ple a dis c us sio n sho ws 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.
These fac ts distinguish this case f rom the ca ses upon which Choate relies. 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 tat 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 ri gh t t o b ri n g a selec tive prosec ution c laim. 973 F.2d 764, 767-69 (9th Cir. 1992). He re, the re is no evide nce that Choate held e rrone ous beliefs a bout the state’s promise at the time that h e en t er ed the plea or
err oneously

believed that the substance w as illeg al when, in f act, it wa s leg al. I n United States v. Ru me ry , th e F if

th C ir c uit he ld t hat 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 ctl y a s to the punis hme nt. 69 8 F .2 d 7 64 , 7 66 -6 7 ( 5th Cir . 1 98 3) . H e re , in contra st, couns el advised Choate corr ectly at the time of the ple a ag ree ment that the state ha d an 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 fir st t ime that th e dis tr ic t c ourt vio la te d Ru le 11(b)( 1)(G) of the F eder al Rules of Cri m i n al Procedur e by not finding that Choate’s plea to the methamphetamine c harg e wa s involuntary . To support t h i s cl aim, Choate re lies on United States v. Mc Creary-Re dd , 475 F.3d 718, 725 (6th Cir. 2007), i n which thi s court found that a district court violated Rule 11(b)( 1)(G) when it fa iled to ask the def endant whe ther he had the r equisite mens reaNo. 06-5213

Un ite d S tat es v . Ch oa te

- 10 - fo r i nte nt t o dis tr ib ut e. Th is c ourt no te d, “ the 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 co c 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 pl eadingg uilty to knowingly

and intentionally

possessing c rac k coca ine with t he intent to dist ribute, ” which the district 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

Redd in severa l importa

nt respec ts. First, the def

endant 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

did not admit to an element of the of fense , name ly the int e nt to di st ri bu te an il le g a l su bs ta nc e . In th is c a se , in

c on tr a st, Cho a te a dmi tte d to having committed a felony under Tenne ssee law by possessing an illeg al substance and to violating fede ral law by possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. For this rea son, 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.