United States v. Ernest Catchings
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 926
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Catchings pleaded guilty to one count of fraudulently obtaining and using personal identification to obtain credit cards and to forgery/fraudulent use of credit cards over $500.
- The district court calculated loss under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) by including losses from U.S. Investments & Construction cards, a business Catchings started with a friend.
- Catchings challenged the inclusion of those losses as non-criminal and sought resentencing.
- At sentencing, the court relied on testimony from McCoy and adopted the PSR’s loss finding, determining a loss >$70,000 but < $120,000, leading to a higher offense level.
- Catchings timely appealed the sentence, challenging the loss calculation, and separately argued his guilty plea was not knowingly or voluntarily entered and that he should be allowed to withdraw the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by treating non-criminal conduct as relevant conduct | Catchings argues U.S. Investments & Construction cards were not criminal | Catchings contends the district court erred in applying § 1B1.3 to the cards | Yes, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether Catchings's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered | Catchings claims plea was not knowingly/voluntarily entered | Court properly informed and compliant with Rule 11 | Guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; Rule 11 complied |
| Whether the denial of the motion to withdraw plea was an abuse of discretion | Catchings contends the motion should be granted due to ineffective assistance and other reasons | Court properly denied withdrawal under Bashara factors | No abuse; denial affirmed, but sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether the Rule 11/sentencing conduct impacted the plea withdrawal ruling | Arguments relate to Rule 11 and timing | Record shows compliance with Rule 11 | Not controlling; review affirmed on Rule 11 grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dixon, 479 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of knowing, voluntary plea standards; factual basis reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2005) (plain-error review when defendant fails to object to Rule 11 defects)
- United States v. Martin, 668 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 2012) (burden on defendant to show that but-for error, plea would not have occurred)
- United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174 (6th Cir. 1994) (factors for fair and just reason for plea withdrawal (non-exclusive))
- United States v. Shafer, 199 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 1999) (relevant conduct must be criminal conduct; loss calculations hinge on this)