United States v. Clarence Singleton
707 F. App'x 298
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Clarence R. Singleton pleaded guilty to conspiracy to use and carry firearms in relation to crimes of violence and drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(o) via § 924(c)) and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery; sentenced to concurrent 240-month terms.
- Crimes arose from membership in the "Mid-City Killers," a New Orleans gang engaged in home invasions, robberies of drug dealers, drug distribution conspiracy, attempted murders, and kidnappings.
- The guilty plea included a factual basis asserting the conspirators planned to use, carry, and possess firearms to rob drug dealers for drugs and proceeds to further drug trafficking and violent crimes.
- Singleton later challenged (1) sufficiency of the factual basis for § 924(o), (2) district court’s reliance on facts in the presentence report (PSR), and (3) the sentencing Guidelines calculations; most issues were raised on appeal rather than preserved below.
- The district court relied on the PSR, which incorporated the plea colloquy, cooperating-witness statements, law enforcement materials, and other sources; Singleton did not submit rebuttal evidence to PSR assertions.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed unpreserved issues under plain-error review and affirmed the district court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of factual basis for § 924(o) | Singleton: plea facts insufficient to prove conspiracy to violate § 924(c) | Government: plea and PSR admissions show conspiracy to use/carry firearms in relation to violent and drug-trafficking crimes | Affirmed — admitted conduct sufficiently establishes § 924(o) offense under plain-error review |
| Adoption of PSR facts at sentencing | Singleton: PSR attributes kidnapping and attempted murders to him without reliable evidence | Government/District Court: PSR compiled from plea, cooperating witnesses, reports; absent rebuttal, court may rely on PSR | Affirmed — district court properly relied on PSR; no clear error in factual findings |
| Sentencing Guidelines calculations | Singleton: Guidelines were misapplied (specifics raised on appeal) | Government: Guidelines application was fact-specific; defendant failed to preserve objections | Affirmed — no reversible plain error; any alleged error not "clear or obvious" |
| Preservation / Standard of review | Singleton: contends defects warrant relief | Government: issues largely unpreserved; review should be plain-error | Affirmed — plain-error standard applies; defendant did not meet its demanding requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2010) (on comparing plea admissions to elements and use of PSR details)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Musa, 45 F.3d 922 (5th Cir. 1995) (preservation and notice of sentencing objections)
- United States v. Garcia-Paulin, 627 F.3d 127 (5th Cir. 2010) (comparing plea conduct to statutory elements under Rule 11)
- United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2001) (factual-basis sufficiency for guilty pleas)
- United States v. Fields, 777 F.3d 123 (5th Cir. 2015) (discussing sufficiency of plea admissions)
- United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for Guidelines interpretation and factual findings)
- United States v. Valencia, 44 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1995) (district court reliance on PSR absent rebuttal evidence)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 2009) (limits on plain-error review where resolving issue requires tortuous legal parsing)