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

Heading: December 11, 2012 Plea Colloquy

Text: 2 Case: 13-15517 Date Filed: 07/15/2014 Page: 3 of 11 On December 11, 2012, Butler pled guilty to Counts 1 and 3 without entering into a plea agreement with the government. At that time, Butler was twenty-three years’ old and had attended two years of college. At the plea colloquy, the district court advised Butler of his right to a trial on the charges against him and asked him if he was “willing to give up that right.” Butler confirmed that he understood that he had a right to a trial and was waiving that right by pleading guilty. The government, at the district court’s direction, stated the elements of the offenses to which Butler was pleading guilty. As to Count 3 in particular, the government stated that the elements were “first, that Mr. Butler committed the crime of violence, as charged, in Count One; secondly, that during and in relation to that crime, he used or carried a firearm, as charged; and third, that he knowingly brandished that firearm during the commission of the crime.” The district court asked Butler if he understood the matters the government would have to prove to convict him, and Butler replied that he did. The government stated that, if the case proceeded to trial, the evidence would show, inter alia, that: (1) Butler and a codefendant “entered the bank brandishing handguns”; (2) “one of the robbers jumped the teller counter and began demanding money from the tellers”; (3) “[t]he second robber . . . while displaying the gun, ordered one of the employees to take him to the bank vault”; and (4) the “robbers ma[de] statements along the lines of, don’t make me shoot 3 Case: 13-15517 Date Filed: 07/15/2014 Page: 4 of 11 you.” The district court asked Butler whether he admitted the facts as stated by the government, and Butler stated that he did. The court then specifically asked Butler, “So you admit you . . . brandished a firearm during the robbery?” Butler confirmed that he “brandished” a firearm during the robbery. Next, the government set forth the potential penalties Butler faced, including that Count 3 had “a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of seven years to be served consecutively to any guideline sentence imposed in the case.” The district court asked Butler if he understood the potential penalties, and Butler replied that he did. The court then asked Butler, “And you understand the Count Three charge is a mandatory consecutive seven years; that is, that will be added to any time you’re given on . . . Count One.” Butler replied that he understood. The district court asked Butler whether there was anything previously discussed that Butler did not “fully understand,” and Butler stated that there was not. The court also asked Butler’s counsel if he was aware of any reason it should not accept the plea, and Butler’s counsel stated that he was not. The district court found that Butler was competent and understood the charges and the consequences of his plea, the plea had a factual basis, and the plea was voluntarily made. The court accepted Butler’s guilty plea as to Counts 1 and 3. C. Initial and Revised Presentence Investigation Reports 4 Case: 13-15517 Date Filed: 07/15/2014 Page: 5 of 11 The initial presentence investigation report (“PSI”), dated August 28, 2013, stated that Butler had an advisory guidelines range of 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment as to Count 1 based on a total offense level of 22 and a criminal history category of II. The initial PSI also stated that Count 3 had a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, to run consecutively to Count 1’s sentence. The government objected to the PSI’s statement that Count 3 had a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, arguing that a seven-year mandatory minimum applied, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), as Butler pled guilty to brandishing a firearm. The probation officer agreed with the government and, on November 7, 2013, issued an amended PSI to reflect that Count 3 had a seven-year mandatory minimum sentence. Butler’s guideline range of 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment for Count 1 remained unchanged. D. November 14, 2013 Sentencing Memorandum In a sentencing memorandum filed on November 14, 2013, Butler argued that, in the absence of a written plea agreement stipulating that he brandished a firearm, or a jury finding as to that issue, it would be a miscarriage of justice for the district court to apply a seven-year mandatory minimum sentence on Count 3, especially where the parties had originally agreed upon the initial PSI’s contents. Butler argued that applying the seven-year mandatory minimum sentence would 5 Case: 13-15517 Date Filed: 07/15/2014 Page: 6 of 11 violate Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (concluding that “[a]ny fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury”). Butler also argued that, at the time he pled guilty, he did not understand the “brandishing” element, as the district court did not define that element. E. November 21, 2013 Sentencing Hearing At sentencing on November 21, 2013, Butler, through counsel, argued that, because the indictment alleged that he used and carried a firearm, but did not allege “brandishing,” as required to trigger the enhanced § 924(c)(1)(A) penalty, Count 3’s mandatory minimum was five years’ imprisonment, not seven years. Butler contended that he lacked sufficient notice that a mandatory minimum penalty of seven years would apply as to Count 3. He also argued that the facts proffered by the government did not establish that he brandished a firearm. The district court found that, at the plea colloquy, Butler understood that Count 3 had a mandatory minimum consecutive sentence of seven years, as he was advised of that penalty. The district court found that Butler was on notice of “what the Government was contending and . . . of what the penalties were.” The district court also noted that it had “actually had [Butler] admit brandishing specifically” during the earlier plea colloquy. The district court overruled Butler’s Alleynebased objection to the revised PSI and thus implicitly rejected Butler’s claim—that 6 Case: 13-15517 Date Filed: 07/15/2014 Page: 7 of 11 he had not understood the “brandishing” element. The district court adopted the final version of the PSI, which stated that a seven-year mandatory minimum prison sentence applied on Count 3. The district court sentenced Butler to 36 months’ imprisonment on Count 1 and to the mandatory minimum of 84 months’ imprisonment (i.e., 7 years) on Count 3. Butler’s total sentence was 120 months’ imprisonment. Butler now appeals.