Background

• Simmons pleaded guilty to Count One (modified) and Count Two; Count Three dismissed; sentences run concurrently with unrelated charge.
• Indictment in Sept. 2010 charged three counts: 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for large-scale marijuana possession, § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) for firearms during a drug-trafficking crime, and § 922(g)(1)/§ 924(a)(2) for possession by a felon.
• Feb. 2012 change-of-plea hearing: plea to Count One (less than 100 marijuana plants) and Count Two; government moved to dismiss Count Three; parties summarized evidence and the firearms admissions.
• PSR stated Simmons owned and bought the firearms for home protection and that the firearms were used in the drug context; Simmons did not object to those PSR facts.
• Sept. 2012 sentencing: Simmons moved to withdraw plea claiming Count Two was misworded; court discussed potential reinstatement of original counts; Simmons chose not to withdraw; two 60-month terms imposed, running concurrently with separate sentence.
• On appeal, Simmons argues Rule 11 error in § 924(c) element; court finds plain error but insufficient to prove substantial rights violation; affirmative nexus evidence given Simmons’s admission that firearms were for home protection in relation to drug dealing.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• United States v. Todd, 521 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes § 924(c) offenses and Rule 11 handling)
• United States v. Vonn, 539 U.S. 55 (U.S. 2002) (plain-error review for Rule 11 violations)
• United States v. Hamilton, 332 F.3d 1144 (8th Cir. 2003) (requires nexus between firearm and drug-trafficking offense)
• United States v. Saddler, 538 F.3d 879 (8th Cir.) (nexus can be inferred from possession near drugs for protection)
• United States v. Paz, 411 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2005) (PSR-admitted facts deemed admitted unless objected)