United States v. Lloyd Myers
804 F.3d 1246
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Myers and Hatfield operated Landmark Trading Company, a Forex Ponzi scheme that solicited about 40 investors and posted false profits to conceal losses.
- Investors were told Landmark was profitable; funds from new investors were used to pay existing investors.
- Myers and Hatfield were indicted in 2009 on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and nine counts of wire fraud.
- Before trial, Myers requested a judge-led settlement conference under N.D. Cal. Crim. R. 11-1, which the district court approved and referred to a magistrate judge.
- Settlement conference occurred December 14, 2012; Myers agreed to plead guilty and to a plea agreement waiving certain appellate rights.
- Myers was sentenced in October 2013 to 18 months, below the Guidelines range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11(c)(1) bars judicial participation in plea discussions | Davila bars any judicial involvement in plea negotiations, including magistrate participation. | Local Rule 11-1 allowed judge-led settlement with defendant’s request; not a Rule 11 violation. | Rule 11(c)(1) prohibits judicial participation; magistrate involvement violated Rule 11(c)(1). |
| Whether Myers waived Rule 11(c)(1) by requesting the settlement conference | Requesting the conference shows intentional seeking of judicial participation; waiver by inviting error. | Rule 11(c)(1) is waivable; defendant did not knowingly waive it due to lack of explicit consent/awareness. | Rule 11(c)(1) can be waived, but Myers did not knowingly waive it; waiver not established. |
| Whether the invited-error doctrine bars review | Myers invited the error by requesting and participating in the settlement conference. | Not clearly relinquished or knowingly abandoned a known right; invited-error not controlling here. | Invited-error doctrine does not bar review because waiver of Rule 11(c)(1) was not proven. |
| Whether plain-error standard applies and merits relief | Davila mandates automatic reversal for Rule 11(c)(1) violations; plain-error may not apply. | Even if error, it did not affect substantial rights or the proceedings’ fairness; settlement aided plea. | Plain-error review applied; no substantial rights affected; no reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013) (held Rule 11(c)(1) violation not automatically vacating a guilty plea; warrants plain-error review)
- United States v. Scolari, 72 F.3d 751 (9th Cir. 1995) (settlement proceedings context; approved settlement participation under earlier rules)
- United States v. Torres, 999 F.2d 376 (9th Cir. 1993) (no Rule 11 violation where settlement negotiated with settlement judge)
- Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995) (federal rules presumptively waivable; rule involving waivers)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error framework; waiver and timely objection principles)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (plain-error standard and burden on defendant for unpreserved error)
- Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (requirement to show probability of a different result for guilty-plea reversal)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (final plain-error standard elements)