United States v. Demetrius Pitts
997 F.3d 688
6th Cir.2021Background
- Demetrius Pitts posted extremist messaging online, sought jihadist training, and expressed a preference for al‑Qaeda; FBI deployed an undercover agent who posed as an al‑Qaeda contact.
- Pitts scouted targets in Cleveland (including a July 4th parade), discussed vehicle‑borne explosives and remote‑control devices, recorded oaths of allegiance, and suggested follow‑up attacks in Philadelphia and San Francisco.
- He was charged with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization (FTO), threatening the President and the First Family, and making false statements; he pleaded guilty to the first three counts under a plea agreement that fixed a 168‑month sentence.
- Defense counsel requested and the court ordered a competency evaluation; a forensic psychologist found Pitts competent and both magistrate and district courts adopted that conclusion.
- At an initial change‑of‑plea hearing Pitts disputed that he had intended to aid “al‑Qaeda”; after negotiations the district court conducted a second plea colloquy, accepted Pitts’s written and oral acknowledgments, and sentenced him to the stipulated 168 months.
- On appeal Pitts argued his plea was invalid (no factual basis, incompetence, not knowing/voluntary because he didn’t understand charges or appellate waiver) and separately argued procedural unreasonableness of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pitts) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Factual basis for guilty plea | Record lacks factual basis because Pitts repeatedly denied attempting to assist al‑Qaeda and said he only spoke to a "Muslim brother" | Written plea, PSR, and complaint affidavit (including recorded conversations) establish facts supporting the plea | Affirmed: factual basis exists (pled written admissions + PSR + affidavit suffice) |
| 2) Competency to plead guilty | Past stroke, long‑term mental‑health history, medication changes, and delay between evaluation and plea rendered him incompetent | Court-ordered forensic evaluation found Pitts competent; no intervening record gave reasonable cause to revisit competency | Affirmed: no plain error; competency finding stands |
| 3) Knowingness/understanding of charges and appellate waiver | Pitts said he didn’t understand charges (disputed link to al‑Qaeda) and twice protested giving up appellate rights | Plea agreement (initialed/signed) and thorough colloquy explained charges, consequences, and preserved limited appeals; Pitts acknowledged understanding | Affirmed: plea was knowing and voluntary; appellate waiver was knowing |
| 4) Procedural reasonableness of sentence | District court misstated Guidelines and possible sentence range (suggesting life) and thus procedurally erred | Plea agreement waived most appellate challenges to sentence; agreed 168‑month term was below statutory maximums and was honored | Not reached on merits: sentencing challenge barred by valid appellate waiver; appeal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (same competency standard for pleading guilty and standing trial)
- United States v. Mobley, 618 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2010) (plain‑error review of uncounseled Rule 11 objections; entire record may establish factual basis)
- United States v. Baez, 87 F.3d 805 (6th Cir. 1996) (defendant’s acknowledgment of written plea can satisfy Rule 11(b)(3) factual‑basis requirement)
- United States v. Bennett, 291 F.3d 888 (6th Cir. 2002) (post‑colloquy materials including PSR may supply factual basis)
- United States v. Alebbini, 979 F.3d 537 (6th Cir. 2020) (elements and evidence required for §2339B material‑support convictions)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
- United States v. Denkins, 367 F.3d 537 (6th Cir. 2004) (competency standard and district court duty to inquire)
- Baker v. United States, 781 F.2d 85 (6th Cir. 1986) (answers given in a scrupulously conducted plea colloquy bind defendant)