United States v. Minor, 19-50744

Minor was charged in a superseding indictment with: distributing heroin (Count 1); possession with intent to distribute ≥100g heroin (Count 2); felon in possession of a firearm (Count 3); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 4).
Minor pleaded guilty to the charged offenses and the district court accepted his pleas.
The superseding indictment alleged October 30, 2017 as the offense date for the firearm counts, but Minor’s factual-basis statement referenced October 30, 2018 (a one-year discrepancy).
Minor did not raise the factual-basis/date issue in the district court and therefore appealed under plain-error review.
The district court also granted a motion to amend the indictment to remove the “at least 100 grams” language for the heroin count; the written judgment nonetheless misstated the statutory subsection for Count 2.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions but remanded for correction of the clerical error in the written judgment under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the factual basis for Minor’s guilty pleas to the firearm offenses was insufficient because the plea colloquy gave an offense date different from the indictment	The admitted factual conduct (including the 2018 date) provided a sufficient factual basis; time is not an element and the 2018 date was within the indictment return and statute of limitations	The one-year discrepancy between the indictment date (2017) and the factual-basis date (2018) rendered the factual basis insufficient to support the firearm convictions	No plain error: time of offense is not an element, the 2018 date was within the indictment period and limitations, and Minor failed to show his substantial rights were affected
Whether the written judgment must be corrected to reflect the accurate statutory subsection for Count 2	The Government agreed the judgment should reflect the amended indictment/sentencing record	Minor asked the court to correct the clerical error (judgment cites subsection (b)(1)(B)(i) but should cite (b)(1)(C))	Remand for correction under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 to fix the clerical/statutory citation error

United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review and looking beyond plea colloquy for factual support)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard)
United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (Rule 11/factual-basis requirements and substantial-rights inquiry)
United States v. Angeles–Mascote, 206 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2000) (purpose of Rule 11(b)(3))
United States v. Gobert, 139 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 1998) (factual-basis specificity requirement)
United States v. Lokey, 945 F.2d 825 (5th Cir. 1991) (time of offense is not an element if within indictment/limitations)
United States v. Johnson, 990 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2021) (elements of §922(g)(1))
United States v. Suarez, 879 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2018) (§924(c) possession furtherance requirement)
United States v. Knowlton, 993 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2021) (plain-error context)
United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2006) (plain-error precedent)
Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (knowledge-of-status requirement under §922(g))
United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2010) (issues not raised are waived)