United States v. Kenneth Eugene Thomas, Jr.
19-11175
11th Cir.Mar 30, 2020Background
- Thomas was arrested after law enforcement pulled over his vehicle and found ~39.9 grams of crack cocaine hidden in the steering-wheel column; wiretaps and a confidential informant tied him to a larger Miami-Dade drug ring.
- A magistrate judge denied Thomas’s suppression motion, finding probable cause based on intercepted calls, observed hand-to-hand transactions, and K-9 alert; Thomas objected but then changed his plea to guilty.
- At plea colloquy Thomas disclosed schizophrenia and medication; the magistrate found him competent and accepted his admissions that he received cocaine from a coconspirator intending to distribute it.
- The PSR treated Thomas as a career offender (career-offender + other adjustments produced an advisory range of 210–262 months after acceptance credit); the court declined a minor-role reduction and denied a downward departure but granted a downward variance to 168 months.
- On appeal Thomas challenged the Rule 11 plea/factual basis and competency, denial of minor-role reduction, refusal to depart downward, procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentence (including disparity arguments), and ineffective assistance of counsel; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of factual basis for guilty plea (Rule 11) | Thomas: plea lacked sufficient factual basis; he did not understand proceedings. | Govt: plea colloquy contained admissions enough to support § 841/846 convictions; competent plea. | Court: No plain error; admissions supplied sufficient factual basis and plea was knowing and voluntary. |
| Competency to plead guilty | Thomas: mental illness/medication rendered him incompetent to plead. | Govt: Court conducted colloquy; Thomas communicated with counsel and understood proceedings. | Court: No plain error; district court reasonably found Thomas competent. |
| Denial of minor-role reduction (U.S.S.G. §3B1.2) | Thomas: he played a minor, nonessential role in the conspiracy. | Govt: Thomas was a repeat distributor and was properly sentenced as a career offender; minor-role reduction unavailable to career-offender and not proved. | Court: Affirmed—career-offender bar applies; even on merits denial not clearly erroneous. |
| Denial of downward departure | Thomas: requested downward departure based on overrepresented criminal history. | Govt: Court had authority to depart; nothing in record shows it thought otherwise. | Court: No jurisdiction to review denial absent evidence court believed it lacked authority. |
| Procedural/substantive reasonableness of sentence (§3553(a)) | Thomas: court failed to make individualized §3553(a) assessment and should have focused on codefendant disparities rather than career-offender status. | Govt: Court considered §3553(a), codefendant differences, and varied downward; sentence reasonable. | Court: Sentence (168 months) was procedurally and substantively reasonable; no abuse of discretion. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Thomas: counsel failed to file interlocutory appeal re suppression and gave bad plea advice; caused loss of 3-level acceptance credit. | Govt: Record insufficient on direct appeal to evaluate ineffective-assistance claims. | Court: Declined to decide on direct appeal; directed Thomas to raise in §2255 because record is not sufficiently developed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Puentes-Hurtado, 794 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing factual basis for plea)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (standard for showing Rule 11 error affected substantial rights)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2014) (competency standard for pleading guilty)
- United States v. Bernal-Benitez, 594 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard for role-reduction review)
- United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2003) (career-offender bar to minor-role reduction)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural/substantive reasonableness framework)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentence review)
- United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 2009) (what suffices to show district court considered §3553(a) factors)