United States v. Derik Rothrock, 617 F. App'x 511

Defendant-appellant Derik Rothrock was indicted on six counts including sexual exploitation of minors (four counts), possession of child pornography, and failure-to-register-related offense; indictment exposed him to mandatory life sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(e).
Rothrock entered a plea agreement: he waived indictment, pled guilty to a Superseding Felony Information charging receipt of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A)), and admitted he knowingly received nude images of a 15-year-old.
The plea agreement included an appellate and collateral-attack waiver covering most sentencing challenges but preserved certain limited appeals (e.g., sentence above statutory maximum or constitutional-factor claims).
At a magistrate judge’s change-of-plea hearing Rothrock confirmed on the record that he understood the plea and appeal-waiver; the magistrate elicited a factual account of texts, requests for photos, and receipt of fully nude images.
The district court accepted the plea; at sentencing it varied upward to the statutory-maximum 480 months’ imprisonment. Rothrock did not object to the factual-basis finding, Guidelines calculation, or the sentence at the hearings, and timely appealed.

Issue	Rothrock's Argument	Government's/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether the plea lacked a sufficient factual basis under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3)	The district court failed to establish an adequate factual basis, so plea may be invalid	The plea colloquy and record supplied an adequate factual basis; any error is forfeited and not prejudicial	Court assumed error but held Rothrock failed to meet plain-error (heightened prejudice) standard; plea stands
Whether Rothrock validly waived appeal rights in plea agreement	Involuntariness of plea might invalidate plea agreement and waiver	Waiver was discussed on the record and understood; waiver is valid for most sentencing challenges	Waiver valid; he cannot appeal most sentencing claims
Whether district court committed procedural sentencing error (Guidelines confusion)	Court failed to clarify Guidelines-calculation confusion at sentencing	Rothrock did not object at sentencing; waiver bars most challenges	Court declined to review because of valid waiver and lack of timely objection
Whether the upward variance to statutory max was substantively unreasonable (based on recidivism)	Variance was primarily for recidivism and unreasonable	Waiver and failure to object foreclose review	Court declined to address substantive-reasonableness claim due to waiver and forfeiture

United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (Rule 11 plain-error review applies when first raised on appeal)
United States v. Murdock, 398 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing validity of appellate waivers)
United States v. Lalonde, 509 F.3d 750 (6th Cir. 2007) (plain-error framework elements)
United States v. Taylor, 627 F.3d 1012 (6th Cir. 2010) (heightened showing of prejudice required for unpreserved Rule 11 challenges)
Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (unpreserved Rule 11 errors require showing reasonable probability defendant would not have pled)
United States v. Sharp, 442 F.3d 946 (6th Cir. 2006) (requirements for enforcing appellate-waiver provisions)