United States v. Brune, 991 F.3d 652

Buck Brune distributed roughly 50–75 pounds of meth over nine months; his supplier was a member of the Michoacán Cartel (described as borrowing its name from the Mexican state).
The government filed a one-count information charging conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and cited § 841(b)(1)(C) by mistake, but the offense the parties intended and to which Brune pled was § 841(b)(1)(B) (the >50 g threshold).
Brune pleaded guilty and repeatedly referenced subparagraph B in his factual resume, waiver, and at arraignment; the magistrate and a district-court order mistakenly cited subparagraph C.
The district court corrected its acceptance order to reflect Brune’s plea to subparagraph B over Brune’s double-jeopardy objection; the PSR initially listed subparagraph C’s lower maximum.
The district court applied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) importation enhancement based on evidence that some meth originated in Mexico; Brune appealed both the double-jeopardy ruling and the enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double jeopardy barred correction of the clerkly error in the court’s plea-acceptance order	Jeopardy did not attach on plea acceptance here; Johnson framework applies (finality and prosecutorial overreach); Brune intended to plead to (b)(1)(B); correcting a clerical error is permissible	Jeopardy attached upon the court’s acceptance of the guilty plea (Sanchez/Kercheval reasoning); correcting the order to reflect the greater-exposure offense violates Double Jeopardy	No double-jeopardy violation: jeopardy does not always attach on plea acceptance; Brune had minimal finality interest and no prosecutorial overreach, so court could correct the clerical error
Whether the district court clearly erred in applying the § 2D1.1(b)(5) importation enhancement	Evidence (supplier tied to the Michoacán Cartel and nexus to Mexico) permits inference some meth was imported; enhancement review is for clear error and is plausible on the record	Insufficient evidence because supplier was described as based in Dallas and mere cartel reference is not enough to prove importation	No clear error: importation finding was plausible in light of the whole record; enhancement affirmed

Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (1984) (framework for when jeopardy attaches after a guilty plea—focus on finality and prosecutorial overreach)
Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977) (double jeopardy bars prosecution for a greater offense after conviction on a lesser-included offense)
Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (1975) (defining attachment as when double-jeopardy interests are implicated)
Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978) (describes jury-trial attachment point and related principles)
Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1 (1987) (jeopardy attaches at least by sentencing)
Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220 (1927) (historic language treating plea as a conviction, discussed but limited by Johnson)
United States v. Sanchez, 609 F.2d 761 (5th Cir. 1980) (earlier Fifth Circuit dictum that jeopardy attaches on plea acceptance, treated as abrogated by Johnson)
United States v. Dinh, 920 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2019) (standard for reviewing factual finding supporting importation enhancement)
United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 2000) (discusses § 841(b)(1) subparagraphs and baseline penalties)