United States v. Lloyd
901 F.3d 111
2d Cir.2018Background
- In 2015 Patrick Lloyd pleaded guilty to: (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846); and (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), the latter charged based on Pinkerton co‑conspirator liability.
- At the change-of-plea hearing Lloyd confirmed he read and discussed a written plea agreement, admitted the facts in the agreement were true, and pleaded guilty; the court accepted the plea.
- Lloyd was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum: 20 years on the drug count and 5 years consecutive on the § 924(c) count (total 25 years).
- Lloyd appealed, arguing (inter alia) the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by failing to (a) inform and ensure he understood the nature/elements of each charge, and (b) determine a factual basis for the plea before entering judgment; he also challenged Pinkerton liability and asserted ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The plea agreement contained an express appeal waiver; Lloyd did not object in district court to the Rule 11 colloquy, so appellate review was for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Lloyd's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court complied with Rule 11(b)(1)(G) (inform defendant of and ensure understanding of the nature of each charge) | Court failed to explain elements or have Lloyd describe his conduct; plea therefore not knowing/voluntary | Colloquy plus written plea agreement and counsel’s assurances were adequate; in any event waiver bars challenges if Rule 11 complied | Court erred in not satisfying Rule 11(b)(1)(G) on the record, but Lloyd failed plain‑error prejudice showing (no reasonable probability he would not have pled); claim fails |
| Whether the court satisfied Rule 11(b)(3) (determine a factual basis before entering judgment) | Deficient colloquy (only admitted facts in agreement briefly) is insufficient | Court could rely on written plea agreement, Lloyd’s admission, and presentence report before entering judgment | No plain error: factual basis was established before judgment via the plea agreement admission and presentence report |
| Whether Pinkerton co‑conspirator liability for § 924(c) is invalid or must be charged in the indictment | Pinkerton is a judicially created liability; if an element, it must be charged | Appeal waiver bars substantive Pinkerton challenges; plea was otherwise valid | Pinkerton challenges are barred by the enforceable appeal waiver; appeal dismissed as to those claims |
| Whether Lloyd received ineffective assistance of counsel at plea | Counsel provided constitutionally defective advice/representation warranting withdrawal of plea | Record unsuitable for resolving ineffective assistance on direct appeal; claim better raised in habeas | Court declines to decide on direct appeal and leaves ineffective-assistance claim for collateral § 2255/habeas proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (co‑conspirator liability doctrine)
- United States v. Torrellas, 455 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006) (plain‑error standard and prejudice for Rule 11 defects)
- United States v. Pattee, 820 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 2016) (need for strict Rule 11 adherence; counsel/prosecutor duties)
- United States v. Blackwell, 199 F.3d 623 (2d Cir. 1999) (vacatur where court failed to ensure defendant understood nature/elements of charge)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (standard for prejudice on plain‑error review of Rule 11 errors)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (ineffective‑assistance claims can render pleas invalid)
- United States v. Arevalo, 628 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (appeal waivers generally enforceable)
- United States v. Adams, 448 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 2006) (waivers do not bar Rule 11 process challenges)