Opinion ID: 2683710
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Butler’s Sentence on Count 3

Text: Here, Butler argues that his sentence on Count 3 must be vacated under Apprendi and Alleyne because the brandishing-of-a-firearm element was not charged in the indictment and submitted to the jury. A threshold issue is whether, by pleading guilty and admitting to brandishing a firearm, Butler waived any defects in the indictment or any argument about submission of the “brandishing” fact to the jury. See United States v. Sanchez, 269 F.3d 1250, 1271 & n.40 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc); United States v. Walker, 228 F.3d 1276, 1278 n.1 (11th Cir. 2000). We need not resolve or rely on this waiver issue, however, because (1) any error in the indictment was harmless, and (2) the district court did not err in sentencing Butler to the enhanced mandatory minimum penalty, in light of his admission to brandishing the firearm. As to the omission in the indictment, we note that, at his plea colloquy, Butler (1) was advised of the elements of a § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) offense, including the brandishing element, (2) was advised of the seven-year mandatory minimum that applied under that statutory provision, (3) admitted that he possessed a 9 Case: 13-15517 Date Filed: 07/15/2014 Page: 10 of 11 handgun and brandished it during the robbery, and (4) stated that he understood everything that was said at the plea colloquy. In light of these facts, there is nothing to suggest that Butler was deprived of notice of the charges against him or confused about the potential penalties of his offenses. And, as he pled guilty only after being advised as to the seven-year mandatory minimum penalty, there is no basis to find that Butler would have changed his plea if the indictment had charged him with brandishing a firearm, in violation of § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). 2 We therefore conclude that any error in the indictment was harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (stating that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded”). And, we conclude that no Apprendi and Alleyne error occurred based on the issue of brandishing not being submitted to the jury because Apprendi and its progeny require only that such a fact that increases a statutory mandatory minimum be found by the jury or “admitted by the defendant.” Booker, 543 U.S. at 228, 125 S. Ct. at 746-47. We recognize that Butler claims that he did not understand what brandishing means and should not be held to his admission that he brandished a firearm. “[B]randishing” under § 924 includes “mak[ing] the presence of the firearm known 2 Indeed, Butler does not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, but rather argues that his sentence on Count 3 must be vacated because he was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of only five years’ imprisonment, not an enhanced sentence of seven years for brandishing a firearm. 10 Case: 13-15517 Date Filed: 07/15/2014 Page: 11 of 11 to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(4). Here, Butler admitted facts that showed that he brandished a firearm, as he acknowledged that he made statements to the bank employees along the lines of “don’t make me shoot you.” This alone made the presence of the firearm known to the bank employees. Butler also admitted that he and his codefendant “entered the bank brandishing handguns.”3 Importantly too, Butler is educated, with two years of college education. When the district court asked Butler if he understood everything discussed, he stated that he did. Given the particular circumstances of this record, we reject Butler’s argument that the district court clearly erred in finding that he understood what it meant to brandish a firearm. 4