Opinion ID: 43676
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Brown pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine hydrochloride. Prior to the sentencing hearing, Brown filed pro se motions to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss his court-appointed counsel, which the district court denied. During the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor noted there had been no discussion of the applicability of the career offender provision during Brown’s plea colloquy. The district court decided not to apply 2 the enhancement because it had not been discussed. As a result, the district court sentenced Brown to 137 months’ imprisonment. Brown appealed his conviction asserting the district court abused its discretion by denying his motions to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss his court-appointed attorney. The Government cross-appealed Brown’s sentence, arguing the district court erred by failing to sentence Brown as a career offender. This Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown’s motions to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss his attorney. In response to Brown’s argument that the Government had induced him to plead guilty by agreeing his sentence would be no more than five or six years, we held the record did not reflect such an agreement—the district court made clear that any numbers mentioned during the plea colloquy were just estimates and that many factors, including his criminal history, would be considered in determining his sentence. We further determined Brown met all the criteria for applying the career offender enhancement, and concluded the district court’s failure to apply the enhancement was error because the plain language of the Guidelines required the district court to sentence Brown as a career offender. Thus, we affirmed Brown’s conviction, but vacated his sentence and remanded the case with instructions that the district court resentence Brown as a career offender with an offense level of 34, a criminal 3 history category of VI, and a sentencing range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. On remand, Brown moved the district court to reconsider his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing he was coerced into pleading guilty, and did not understand the consequences of his guilty plea with respect to the career offender enhancement. He asserted he was misled by the predictions of his attorney and the prosecutor as to the sentence he faced. Brown also objected to the career offender enhancement, arguing the Government failed to sufficiently prove the career offender enhancement applied. The district court concluded, in light of this Court’s mandate, that it had no authority to grant Brown’s motions, and denied them. During the resentencing hearing, the district court indicated throughout the hearing that it had no discretion in applying the career offender provision, and stated: “I did feel the 137 months I gave you originally was a more appropriate sentence, but based on the instruction I’ve received from the Eleventh Circuit, it is my obligation to sentence you within the range of 262 to 327 months, so I’m going to sentence you to 262 months.” 4