United States v. Antonio White, 628 F. App'x 848

Antonio White was indicted for residential burglaries on Fort Bragg; Count One charged conspiracy referencing both 18 U.S.C. § 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act) and 18 U.S.C. § 371 (federal conspiracy).
White signed a plea agreement stating he would "plead guilty to Count One," but the agreement mistakenly listed the "Code section violated" as "18 U.S.C. § 13 Assimilating N.C.G.S. § 14-54" while elsewhere listing a five-year maximum consistent with § 371.
At the Rule 11 colloquy the court read Count One and informed White of a five-year maximum; the plea was accepted and later the Probation Officer treated the offense as under § 371 with a Guidelines range.
A dispute emerged at sentencing: White argued he pled to an assimilated § 13 conspiracy (a misdemeanor for federal purposes with a one-year maximum); the Government argued he pled to § 371 (a felony).
The district court found the parties had "mutually manifested" assent to § 371 and sentenced White to time served; White appealed.
The Fourth Circuit held the drafting error created substantial ambiguity about the essential term (the statutory charge) and, given the rule construing ambiguities against the Government and the need for a meeting of the minds in plea bargains, vacated the judgment and remanded.

Issue	White's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the plea agreement reflected a meeting of the minds on the statute charged	Agreement lists §13; White says he pled to assimilated-state conspiracy (§13) with ≤1 year max	Agreement references Count One and 5-year max; Govt says parties meant §371 federal conspiracy	No meeting of the minds; plea ambiguous and unenforceable — judgment vacated
Whether the Rule 11 colloquy resolved the ambiguity	Colloquy did not cure the written error; still ambiguous	Colloquy clarified that White pled to §371	Colloquy insufficient to overcome the fundamental drafting error and rule construing ambiguity against Government
Whether court may enforce plea as §13 on remand	White seeks enforcement consistent with written agreement (§13)	Government opposes enforcing an interpretation not mutually agreed	Court declined to enforce any interpretation; entire agreement discarded and parties must re-negotiate
Whether ambiguity should be construed against the Government	N/A — White invokes protections of plea construction rules	Govt argues contextual clues show §371 was intended	Ambiguities construed against Government; fundamental error requires vacatur

Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155 (discussing Assimilative Crimes Act)
United States v. Wood, 378 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2004) (de novo review of plea agreement interpretation)
United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) (plea agreements analyzed under contract principles with special scrutiny)
Houmis v. United States, 558 F.2d 182 (3d Cir. 1977) (vacating plea where meeting of the minds doubtful)
United States v. Bradley, 381 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2004) (invalidating plea for lack of mutual assent)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (guilty plea waives vital constitutional rights; courts must ensure voluntariness)