United States v. Reed
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10491
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kevin Reed ran a company that solicited $10,000–$50,000 up-front fees from would‑be borrowers for loans that never existed; he was indicted for six counts of wire fraud.
- Reed went to trial but on the fourth day entered a "blind" guilty plea after the district judge conducted a Rule 11 colloquy; the court accepted the plea.
- Four months later, before sentencing, Reed sought new counsel and moved to withdraw the plea, claiming trial counsel was so unprepared that the plea was involuntary.
- The district court denied withdrawal, finding Reed’s allegations of ineffective assistance vague and inconsistent with his sworn plea statements.
- At sentencing Reed argued for probation due mainly to extraordinary family hardship (wife disabled, one child disabled, sole financial provider); the court imposed a within‑Guidelines 64‑month sentence.
- On appeal Reed challenged (1) denial of plea withdrawal and (2) procedural error for failing at the oral sentencing hearing to address his principal mitigation claim; the Seventh Circuit affirmed on the first point and on the second relied on the written statement of reasons to conclude the argument was considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reed) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reed could withdraw his guilty plea after acceptance but before sentencing | Plea was involuntary because trial counsel was unprepared, forcing him to plead | Sworn plea colloquy statements and vague affidavits do not show coercion or deficient performance | Denied — district court did not abuse discretion; plea withdrawal not warranted |
| Whether sentencing judge was required to address Reed's principal mitigation (family hardship) at the oral hearing | The judge failed to address or explain rejection of Reed’s main mitigation argument at sentencing | Judge considered family hardship in the written statement of reasons and adequately weighed it against aggravating factors | Affirmed — written statement shows the court considered and rejected the mitigation; no remand required (majority) |
| Whether a written statement issued after sentencing can cure omission from the oral hearing | Reed: post‑hoc written reasons cannot substitute for in‑court consideration and deny defendant chance to respond | Government: written statement is part of the record and can show the court considered the mitigation | Majority: written reasons suffice to show consideration; Concurrence (dissent in part) disagrees and would remand |
| Standard for evaluating counsel unpreparedness claims in plea‑withdrawal motions | Reed: counsel’s proposed trial plan and alleged uncompleted work show unpreparedness | Court: must show specific, objectively unreasonable failures; conclusory, nonspecific claims insufficient | Court applied standard and found Reed’s submissions too vague to prove ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Graf, 827 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard for plea‑withdrawal discretion and treating sworn plea statements as weighty)
- United States v. Stewart, 198 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 1999) (sworn statements at plea colloquy are not lightly disregarded)
- United States v. Mays, 593 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2010) (grounds for withdrawing plea include involuntariness or innocence)
- United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2008) (sentencing court must address principal mitigation arguments and explain rejections)
- United States v. Donelli, 747 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2014) (procedural requirement ensures judge considered principal sentencing issues)
- United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005) (review focuses on whether record shows considered attention to mitigation)
- United States v. Pape, 601 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2010) (written statement of reasons may aid interpretation of oral statement)
- United States v. Dill, 799 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. 2015) (statutory requirement to state reasons in open court at sentencing)