United States v. Glenn Gooch, 703 F. App'x 159

Glenn Gooch pleaded guilty to receipt and possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 84 months imprisonment and lifetime supervised release.
At the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea hearing, the magistrate judge did not inform Gooch that the maximum term of supervised release was life.
Gooch did not move to withdraw his plea and therefore appellate review of the Rule 11 colloquy is for plain error.
Gooch challenged (1) the Rule 11 omission regarding supervised release, (2) the substantive reasonableness of the lifetime supervised release term, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to submit a law-review article and for not arguing his criminal history was overstated.
The district court sentenced within the Guidelines range and articulated consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, including criminal history and offense seriousness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 11 omission of maximum supervised release	The magistrate erred by not informing Gooch the maximum supervised release is life; this affected his substantial rights	Omission was harmless: Gooch does not contend it affected his decision to plead and the court otherwise ensured a knowing, voluntary plea with factual basis	No plain error; omission did not affect substantial rights and plea stands
Substantive reasonableness of lifetime supervised release	Lifetime supervised release is substantively unreasonable for Gooch	Sentence is within statutory and Guidelines ranges and district court properly considered § 3553(a) factors	Sentence was substantively reasonable and not an abuse of discretion
Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing	Counsel was deficient for not citing a law-review article and for not arguing criminal history was overstated, causing prejudice	Record does not conclusively show deficiency or prejudice; such claims are better raised in § 2255	Not resolved on direct appeal; no conclusive ineffective assistance on record — raise in § 2255 if desired

United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error standard for Rule 11 review when defendant does not move to withdraw plea)
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 requires informing defendant of rights, charges, and maximum penalties and establishing factual basis)
Davila v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013) (to show Rule 11 error affected substantial rights, defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pled but for the error)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentencing under abuse-of-discretion standard)
United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 2015) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2006) (presumption rebutted only by showing sentence unreasonable under § 3553(a) factors)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 2016) (ineffective-assistance claims not considered on direct appeal unless conclusively shown by the record)
United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2010) (ineffective-assistance claims may be raised in § 2255 proceedings)