United States v. Jesmene Lockhart, 917 F.3d 259

In Sept. 2014 police found Lockhart in the driver’s seat and recovered a loaded, stolen handgun and extra magazine; he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) without a written plea agreement.
During the Rule 11 plea colloquy the government stated the maximum penalty was 10 years; the court did not advise Lockhart of a possible 15-year mandatory minimum under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
The PSR later recommended ACCA treatment based on three prior North Carolina convictions; the PSR noted the plea colloquy error and that ACCA exposure would be a 15-year mandatory minimum.
Lockhart’s counsel objected to the ACCA designation on other grounds but did not claim lack of notice or move to withdraw the plea; the district court designated him an armed career criminal and imposed a 15-year mandatory sentence.
At sentencing counsel said privately that he had previously informed Lockhart of ACCA exposure, but the district court did not confirm this with Lockhart; Lockhart appealed represented by new counsel.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, applying its precedent in United States v. Massenburg and finding Lockhart failed to show a reasonable probability he would not have pleaded if properly advised.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court plain-erred by failing to advise of ACCA mandatory minimum at Rule 11 plea colloquy	Lockhart: omission was plain error that affected substantial rights because accurate sentencing exposure could have changed his decision to plead	Government: court erred but Lockhart cannot show a reasonable probability he would not have pleaded; record lacks affirmative evidence of changed decision	Affirmed — error was plain but, under Massenburg, Lockhart failed to show it affected his substantial rights (no reasonable probability he would have declined plea)
Standard for prejudice on plain-error Rule 11 review when sentencing information is incorrect	Lockhart: Dominguez Benitez requires assessing the entire record to show reasonable probability he would have chosen trial	Government: apply Fourth Circuit’s Massenburg framework requiring affirmative record showing (statements, motion to withdraw, case strength)	Held: apply Massenburg; defendant must affirmatively show on the record a reasonable probability he would not have pleaded

United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2009) (Fourth Circuit precedent requiring affirmative record showing of reasonable probability defendant would not have pleaded after incorrect Rule 11 sentencing information)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (Supreme Court: on plain-error Rule 11 review defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pleaded but for the error, based on the entire record)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework and factors for correcting unpreserved errors)
Rodriguez v. United States, 553 U.S. 377 (2008) (court must accurately inform defendant of sentencing exposure; misinformation can support withdrawal of plea)