United States v. Jamie Eldred Black
685 F. App'x 745
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jamie Eldred Black pled guilty to two counts of interstate travel in aid of racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)) and appealed after sentencing.
- At a change-of-plea hearing the government recited facts that Black purchased methamphetamine in Georgia and brought it back to South Carolina; Black agreed to the factual statement attributing ~219.1 g d‑methamphetamine ("ice") to him.
- Black did not object to the Rule 11 plea colloquy at the time; he later claimed the court failed to comply with Rule 11 and that his plea was involuntary due to mental-health issues.
- Black also raised ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims: allowing an involuntary/unsupported plea, failing to object to a two-level firearm (weapon) enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), failing to object to consecutive sentences under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d), and failing to file a sentencing memorandum.
- The district court had a psychiatrist evaluate Black, who concluded Black could understand the proceedings; the plea colloquy included waiver of trial rights and confirmation of understanding.
- The PSR noted a BB gun found in a truck on an unrelated date; the district court calculated a guideline range of 108–135 months, which exceeded the statutory maximum for a single count, leading to consecutive sentences under § 5G1.2(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Black) | Defendant's Argument (Govt / District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11 compliance / plain error at plea hearing | Court failed to comply with Rule 11 (esp. after recess and new plea deal); plea not knowing/voluntary | Record shows court advised Black of rights, confirmed voluntariness and understanding; no binding precedent requiring re‑advisal after recess | No plain error; Rule 11 requirements satisfied and plea knowing/voluntary |
| Factual basis for plea (drug quantity) | Black claimed he was unaware he’d be held responsible for >157 g "ice" | Government recited plea agreement facts; Black admitted to 219.1 g at colloquy; plea colloquy statements presumed true | Sufficient factual basis; no error |
| Mental competency / voluntariness due to mental health | Black argued Tourette’s/drug history impaired his ability to understand plea | Psychiatrist found Black competent; Black’s own questions and answers showed understanding | No plain error; plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Ineffective assistance — allowing plea / failure to litigate plea voluntariness | Counsel allowed an involuntary/unsupported plea; counsel didn’t preserve record | Record not sufficiently developed (no evidentiary hearing or full testimony from counsel) | Claim not resolved on direct appeal; better raised on § 2255 because record insufficient |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to §2D1.1(b)(1) (weapon enhancement) | Counsel should have objected to two‑level weapon enhancement tied to BB gun found on unrelated date | BB gun found on April 11, 2014 in separate offense; unclear whether that conduct was part of same course; no testimony why counsel did not object | Record insufficient to resolve on direct appeal; defer to § 2255 |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to consecutive sentences under §5G1.2(d) | Counsel should have argued sentences should run concurrently | Guideline range (108–135 mo) exceeded statutory max for a single count (60 mo); §5G1.2(d) supports consecutive sentences | No prejudice; counsel’s failure not ineffective for this claim; denied |
| Failure to file sentencing memorandum addressing §3553(a) | Counsel’s omission prejudiced sentencing | No testimony explaining counsel’s tactic; record undeveloped | Record insufficient on direct appeal; better raised on §2255 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Quinones, 97 F.3d 473 (11th Cir. 1996) (plain‑error review of Rule 11 when no contemporaneous objection)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (abrogation on other grounds regarding plea challenges)
- United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2007) (plain‑error standard elements)
- United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938 (11th Cir. 2006) (what constitutes plain error)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (reasonable probability standard for Rule 11 plain error affecting plea choice)
- United States v. Lewis, 115 F.3d 1531 (11th Cir. 1997) (Rule 11 requirements)
- United States v. Jones, 143 F.3d 1417 (11th Cir. 1998) (core concerns for plea voluntariness)
- United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005) (review of whole record for Rule 11 compliance)
- United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185 (11th Cir. 1994) (presumption of truth for plea colloquy statements)
- United States v. Frye, 402 F.3d 1123 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard for factual basis for plea)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard in guilty‑plea context)
- United States v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2010) (preference to resolve ineffectiveness via §2255 when record undeveloped)
- United States v. Stallings, 463 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2006) (government’s burden to justify firearm enhancement)
- United States v. Pressley, 345 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2003) (interpretation of §5G1.2(d) requiring consecutive sentences when guideline range exceeds single‑count maximum)