United States v. Robert Leben, 663 F. App'x 261

Defendant Robert S. Leben pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to defraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343).
The district court conducted a Rule 11 plea colloquy and sentenced Leben to 40 months’ imprisonment within the Guidelines range.
Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but questioning whether the district court substantially complied with Rule 11.
Leben did not file a pro se brief or move to withdraw his plea in the district court.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed for plain error because no Rule 11 objection was preserved.
The court found the only error was the district court’s failure to expressly state acceptance of the Government’s factual basis; Leben had agreed the factual basis was correct and did not show prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when accepting Leben’s guilty plea	Leben (appellant) argued the colloquy may have been defective under Rule 11	Government and district court maintained the colloquy was thorough and met Rule 11 requirements	Court: Only minor omission was failure to expressly accept factual basis, but overall Rule 11 compliance was sufficient
Whether any Rule 11 error warrants relief under plain-error review	Leben contended the omission could be reversible error	Government argued Leben cannot show a reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty absent the omission	Court: Under plain-error standard, Leben failed to show the omission affected substantial rights; affirmed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (framework for counsel filing a brief asserting no meritorious issues)
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 requirements for plea colloquies)
United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error standard for unpreserved Rule 11 errors)