United States v. Ernest Moore
403 U.S. App. D.C. 242
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Moore pled guilty to three counts: Student Aid Fraud (Count One) based on obtaining funds by fraud/false statements; Bank Fraud (Count Two) based on fraud to banks; Social Security Fraud (Count Three) based on improper receipt of benefits while not caring for beneficiary.
- District Court sentenced Moore to concurrent 50-month terms and concurrent 36–60 month supervised releases, with restitution of $759,593.86 to victims.
- Plea Agreement required Moore to make restitution to all victims of his conduct, not just those in counts,” and allowed the district court to resolve restitution amounts with Probation Office assistance.
- PSR post-plea calculated Moore’s Criminal History as Category V, though the Plea Agreement estimated Category II; Moore’s counsel withdrew objections at sentencing.
- Moore challenged (1) plea-colloquy error, (2) PSR criminal history basis, (3) restitution scope, and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel; the government defended the procedures and outcomes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11 plea-colloquy error on element description | Moore argues the court misread §1097(a) and misdescribed elements for Student Aid Fraud. | Moore contends the misdescription undermines voluntariness of plea. | Plain error shown; but no substantial-right impact; no reversal on plea. |
| Effect of plea-colloquy error on substantial rights | Error affected Moore’s understanding of the charge. | Moore was otherwise aware of the charges and pled knowingly. | No plain error affecting substantial rights; plea valid. |
| Criminal History calculation and waiver at sentencing | PSR Category V should be reviewed; prior objection preserved scrutiny. | Moore withdrew objections; waiver precludes appeal of this issue. | Waived; cannot review due to counsel’s withdrawal; no reversal. |
| Restitution scope under plea agreement | Restitution should cover all victims of Moore’s conduct. | Language stricken from plea agreement is irrelevant; district court authority clear. | Restitution lawful under plea agreement; district court properly ordered restitution. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing | Counsel failed to properly argue guidelines and restitution issues. | No prejudice; record supports effective assistance; sentencing not affected. | No ineffective assistance; no reversible prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error review factors; additional requirements for error to affect fairness)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2004) (plain-error standard; need to show error affected substantial rights)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (U.S. 2002) (harmless-error standard in Rule 11(h) context; silent defendant burdens)
- In re Sealed Case, 283 F.3d 349 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (plea-colloquy scrutiny; totality of circumstances guides understanding of charges)
- United States v. Ranum, 96 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 1996) (Section 1097(a) liability based on false statements without misapplication)
- United States v. Gibson, 770 F.2d 306 (2d Cir. 1985) (conviction under §1097(a) based on obtaining funds by fraud/false statement)
- United States v. Ahn, 231 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (plea-colloquy must convey understanding of charges; not necessarily every element)
- United States v. Dewalt, 92 F.3d 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Rule 11 colloquy sufficiency standards)
- United States v. Ranum, 96 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 1996) (see above)
- United States v. Silkowski, 32 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 1994) (restitution authority under 18 U.S.C. §3663; delegation in plea)