The Honor able J. Ronni e Gr eer , Uni t ed S t at es Dist rict Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Tenne ssee, sitting by

desig nation. File Na

me: 07a0710n.06 Filed: Oc tober 3, 2007 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 04-2187 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. BI L L Y HAVENDRO AUSTI N, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

/ Be fo re : M AR T I

N a n d M cK E AG UE , C i rc u i tJ u d ges ; GR E E R , Di s t ri ct J u d ge * BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circuit J udg e. Billy Austin appea ls his conviction entere d under a plea ag ree ment for a

rmed ba nk robber y and using a

nd discharg ing a

firea rm during and in re lation to a c ri me of vio le nc e . Au sti n ha s fi le d tw o br ie fs , on e pr o se and the oth e r t hr ou g h c ouns e l. I

n h is pr o se br ie f, Au sti n c on te nd s h e re c e ive d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. T hr ou g h c ouns e l, Aus tin argues t hat hi s plea did not meet the r equire ments of Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and that
re- sentenc ing is re quired be cause his sentence was e ntere d pre- Booke r . I.No. 04-2187

Un ite d S tates v . A us tin Pag e 2 Austin argues that t he dis trict court did not adequately explain eac h element of the offe nses to which he pled guilty
. Un d er Ru l e 1 1, the district court is re quired to dete rmine in open c ourt wh et h er t h e d e f e n d an tu n d er s t an d s “t h e n at u re o f e ac hch ar ge t o wh i ch t h e d ef en d an ti s p l ea d i n g;

. . .” Fed. R. Cr im. P. 1 1( b) (1 )( G) . T his Court ha s st a te d th a t in

or de r t o a de qu a te ly

me e t th is
re qu ir e me nt a

dis tr ic t c ourt

mus t, in a

sim ple c a se , r e a d th e ind ic tme nt t o th e de fe nd ant a nd pe rm it the def endant to ask que stions about the c harg es, or in a mor e complex case , explain the nature of the cha rg es further unti l the di strict court is satisfied t hat t he defenda nt understands the elements of the offe nse. See U

nited States v. Syal , 963 F.2d 900, 904- 05 (6th Cir. 1992). Th e re c or d in

the pr e se nt c a se de mon str a te s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt a de qu a te ly a ssu re d it se lf t h a tA u s t i nu n d e r s t o o d

t h e n a tu r e o f

t h e c h ar g e s t o w h i c hh e p l e d g u i l t y:

• Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

ins tr uc te d th e g ov e rnme nt to re a d the ind ic tme nt f or c ounts two and thre e, to which Austin intended to plea d g uilty
.

• After

the g overnme nt rec ited counts two and thre e fr om t h e indi ctment the district court t hen sum marized the counts and e x plained that by “aidingand abetting ,” the g overnme nt intended to s h o w Au stin “assisted” in the bank robber y and the use of a f

irea rm in the bank robbe ry .

• After

the gover nment rea d the indictment and the district cour t summarized the c ounts and

e xpla ine d “ a idi ngand

a be tt i n g , ” the dis tr ic t c ourt

a sk e d Aus tin if he un de rs too d th e c ha

rg e s to wh ic h h e wa s p le a din g g uil ty . Aus tin responde d that he under stood the char g es.No. 04-2187

Un ite d S tates v . A us tin Pag e 3

• The district court then asked Austin to “[t] ell me what y ou did here that y ou

believe makes y ou g uilty .” Austi n then explained what happe ned on the da y of the ro bb e ry , w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt a sk ing mul tip le fo llo w- up qu e sti on s in order to satisfy itself that there was a fac tual basis for Austin’s guilty plea on both counts.

• Th e dis tr ic t court fo un d that Aus tin un de rs too d the natur e of the c ha rg e s to which he w as plea ding guilty
. Ba sed on this rec ord, we do not b el i eve it can be sa id that Austin did not understand the nature of the c harg es to which he plead guilty nor do we believe it ca

n be said that the district c ourt
c o m m i t t e d

e r r o r i ns a t i s f yi n g i t s e l f t h a tA u s t i nu n d e r s t o o d

t h e n a tu r e o f t h e c h ar g e s . A c c o r d i n g l y, this Court finds t he district cour t complied with the require ments of Rule 11 duringAustin ’s pl ea colloquy and did not commit any

err or. II. Bo t h Au s t i n and the g overnme nt ag ree that a re mand for r e-se ntencingis warr anted he re beca use hi s sentenc e was calc ulated pre

- Booke r . We a g ree as well. Se e Un ite d S tates v . B ar

ne tt , 398 F.3d 516, 526- 29 (6th Cir. 2005). Acc ording ly , this Court remands for de novo re- sentenc ing under Booke r . Se e Un ite d S tates v . S e ttl e , 414 F.3d 629, 632 ( 6th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ On re mand, the district court must i m p ose a r easona ble sentenc e that take s into account the se ntencingfac tors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) , as we ll as the SentencingGuidelines.”)
. III
.No. 04-2187

Un ite d S tates v . A us tin Pag e 4 Au sti n r a ise s f

or the fi rs t ti me in h is p ro se a pp e a l ( wh ic h w a s expr e ssl y no t a do pte d b y his appea l thr oug h counsel) a claim for ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. “As a g ener al rule, this cour

t will not review c laim s o f i neff ective c ounsel that are raised f or the fir st tim e on appe al.” United States v. Thomas , 74 F.3d 701, 715 (6th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and c itations omi tted). “I t i s ap p ropriate on direc t appea l only when the r ecor d is adequate to assess the mer its of the defe ndant[’s] alleg ations.” United States v. Rahal , 1 9 1 F. 3 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 5 (6 t hC i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Kincaide , 145 F.3d 771, 785 ( 6th Cir.1998)). “Claims of ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel
are more prope rly

available in a post-conviction proc eedingunder 28 U .S.C. § 2255, afte r the par ties have ha d the opportunity

to de velop an adequate re cord on the issue from which the revie wing court is c apable of ar

riving at an infor

med dec ision.” Id. (c i t i n g United St ates v. Sey mour , 38 F.3d 261, 263 (6th Cir.1994)). Her e, the r ecor d is insufficient to assess the mer its of Austin’s in ef fe ctive assistanc e of counsel claim. Accor dingly , we f ind the claim unripe a

nd decline to r eview it for the first time on direc t appea l. I V. For the fore g oing rea sons, we AFF I RM Austin’s conviction, but VACATE his sentenc e and REMAND for

re- sentenc ing unde r Booke r . We d o n o t addre ss Austin’s claim of ineff ective assistance of counse l. Motion of appellant to withdraw a s counsel of r ecor d is hereby g rante d.