United States v. Reco Cauthen
684 F. App'x 331
4th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Reco Valarie Cauthen pleaded guilty via written plea agreement to being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)).
- Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but raising questions about the plea's validity and the 120-month sentence.
- Cauthen (pro se) argued his proffered statements were used to enhance his sentence, counsel was ineffective, and prior-conviction enhancements were improper under recent Supreme Court decisions addressing vagueness and career-offender rules.
- The district court held a Rule 11 colloquy (with minor omissions) and imposed a Guidelines sentence after applying enhancements (including for possession of at least three firearms).
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed plea validity and sentence reasonableness, considered procedural and substantive challenges, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea under Rule 11 | Cauthen contends colloquy omissions undermined knowing, voluntary plea | Government: plea was knowing, voluntary, supported by factual basis | Court: omissions were minor; plea valid and substantial rights unaffected |
| Use of proffered statements to enhance sentence | Cauthen says proffer statements were used to increase sentence | Government denies enhancement relied on proffer; record contradicts claim | Court: record shows statements were not used to enhance sentence |
| Challenge to "residual clause" (vagueness) | Cauthen contends residual clause invalidates enhancement | Government relies on Beckles and authority that advisory Guidelines survive vagueness challenge | Court: Beckles forecloses vagueness challenge to advisory Guidelines |
| Sentencing enhancements (multiple guns; prior convictions) | Cauthen argues enhancements improperly applied, relying on recent SCOTUS ACCA/career-offender decisions | Government: enhancements properly applied per Guidelines and facts (≥3 guns, criminal history) | Court: factual findings not clearly erroneous; enhancements and Guideline calculation proper; sentence reasonable |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal | Cauthen asserts counsel ineffective | Government: such claims not suitable on direct appeal absent record conclusiveness | Court: decline to consider on direct appeal; recommend § 2255 if pursued |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to seek withdrawal when no meritorious appeal exists)
- DeFusco v. United States, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 plea requirements)
- Davila v. Davis, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013) (standard for Rule 11 substantial-rights inquiry)
- Martinovich v. United States, 810 F.3d 232 (4th Cir. 2016) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
- Adepoju v. United States, 756 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for sentencing enhancements)
- Louthian v. United States, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge under Due Process)
- Faulls v. United States, 821 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 2016) (ineffective-assistance claims typically raised in § 2255 proceedings)
- Baptiste v. United States, 596 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2010) (same)