finding Rule 11(c)(1) error where the district court informed appellant that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years when the post-plea case of Ap-prendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), directed that appellant face no mandatory minimum sentence
How later courts described this case
- finding Rule 11(c)(1) error where the district court informed appellant that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years when the post-plea case of Ap-prendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), directed that appellant face no mandatory minimum sentence
- holding that “[bjecause [defendant] did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review his alleged [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 errors under the standard applicable to forfeited error, i.e., assertions of error raised for the first time on appeal”
- finding the district court erred “in failing to specifically advise [Defendant] that he would not have cause to withdraw his guilty pleas if the court rejected the Government’s sentencing recommendation”
- explaining that a sentencing court may consider the presentence report (“PSR”) as a source of the factual basis to establish the crime, so long as the PSR is made part of the record on appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUTTIG, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
In United States v. Promise, 255 F.3d 150, 168-86 (4th Cir.2001) (en banc), I separately stated my views as to the proper interpretation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 , and I will not repeat those views here. The court disagreed with those views, and its interpretation of section 841 is now binding. Because that interpretation is the law of the circuit I concur in the court’s analysis of the errors allegedly committed by the district court. Additionally, but only because Martinez faced imprisonment for a term of 140 years even absent Count One, I also concur in the court’s conclusion that Martinez has failed to carry his burden of showing that his substantial rights were affected by the district court’s errors.