United States v. Gilbert

In United States v. Gilbert, No. 23-10896 (5th Cir. May 16, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s guilty-plea conviction and rejected his arguments that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and that he should have been appointed substitute counsel at sentencing.

Issue 1: Although Gilbert’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver, that waiver did not bar his challenge to the “knowing and voluntary nature of his guilty plea.” See United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 & n.3 (5th Cir. 2012).

“For a guilty plea to be knowing, … the defendant must understand the charges against him, the consequences of his plea, and the nature of the constitutional protections he is waiving. United States v. Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d 361, 366 (5th Cir. 2014).” Gilbert argued that his plea failed that test because he “disputed the accuracy of the information in the factual resume and presentence report regarding the frequency of drug deals and the quantity of drugs attributable to him.”

The Fifth Circuit disagreed because “in open court,” Gilbert agreed that he knew the statutory maximum punishment, had discussed the Sentencing Guidelines and their application to his case with his attorney, and understood that the court was not bound by any of the parties’ stipulations. He also “affirmed that he had entered into the plea agreement voluntarily and of his own free will and that his guilty plea was not the result of any promises or assurances ‘of any kind’ apart from those contained in the plea agreement.” As a result, “a reasonable person would not doubt that he understood the charge and his potential sentence.”

Issue 2: It was not error for the district court not to appoint substitute counsel at sentencing, although the Fifth Circuit did not explain why.

Issue 3: Gilbert’s appellate attorney “neither addressed the appeal waiver’s possible application to this issue nor replied to the Government’s invocation of the waiver,” so the court “cautioned” him that “pursuing an appeal contrary to a valid waiver and without responding to the Government’s invocation of the waiver is a needless waste of judicial resources that could result in sanctions. See United States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d 222, 223–24 (5th Cir. 1999).”