United States v. Christopher Lee
694 F. App'x 318
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Christopher Lee pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 846; 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)).
- At rearraignment Lee waived reading of the charging instrument and factual resume; the magistrate did not advise him of the maximum term of supervised release.
- Lee’s PSR attributed approximately 4.7 kilograms of actual methamphetamine to him and recommended a Guidelines range based on that quantity; the superseding information charged 50 grams or more.
- Lee received a downward-departure sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment (below the Guidelines range of 360–480 months) and three years’ supervised release.
- Lee raised two challenges on appeal: (1) alleged Rule 11 colloquy defects at rearraignment, and (2) Sixth Amendment argument that the district court improperly found a higher drug quantity than charged, increasing his statutory exposure.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed both claims for plain error because Lee failed to object below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11 colloquy defects (waiver of reading; failure to state maximum supervised release) | Lee argued the magistrate’s failure to read documents and not stating maximum supervised release violated Rule 11 and invalidated his plea | Government noted Lee affirmed the information/factual resume, acknowledged reading to him, and the magistrate accommodated Lee’s inability to read; supervised-release admonition ("not less than four years") encompassed a life maximum | No reversible plain error: Lee’s acknowledgments and the phrasing cured any Rule 11 variance; any error was at most harmless |
| Drug-quantity findings / Sixth Amendment jury-trial right | Lee contended the court’s use of PSR quantity (4.7 kg) versus charged 50g+ increased statutory minimum and maximum and violated Sixth Amendment | Government argued Lee stipulated to a conspiracy involving 50g+; PSR and sentencing reflected the five-to-40-year statutory range; Guidelines factfinding does not implicate Sixth Amendment in this context | No plain error: record shows statutory range remained five to 40 years; Guidelines quantity findings do not violate the Sixth Amendment; Romans governs that such findings are permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for unobjected Rule 11 issues)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (standard for plain-error relief)
- United States v. Cuevas-Andrade, 232 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2000) (harmlessness of certain Rule 11 variances)
- United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 1994) (colloquy must show defendant understood nature of charge)
- United States v. Jackson, 559 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2009) (supervised-release admonitions and maximum exposure)
- United States v. Romans, 823 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2016) (district-court factfinding for Guidelines does not violate Sixth Amendment)