United States v. Rodney Jerome
707 F. App'x 853
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Rodney Jerome pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and appealed his conviction and sentence.
- At rearraignment Jerome contended the district court encouraged him to waive reading of the indictment and failed to have the factual basis read into the record, arguing this violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3) and due process.
- Jerome also argued at sentencing that he was entitled to a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a), claiming he was substantially less culpable than average and that the court relied on outdated guidelines and factual errors (e.g., storing drugs for others, hiding guns).
- The district court adopted the presentence report’s factual findings, denied the mitigating-role adjustment, and applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5).
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed Rule 11/factual-basis and sentencing-role issues, considering whether any errors were plain and whether Jerome’s substantial rights were affected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred under Rule 11 by not reading indictment or factual basis and failed to satisfy itself of a factual basis for the plea | Jerome: court encouraged waiver of indictment reading, omitted factual-basis recital, so no subjective assurance of factual basis; asserted due process violation | Government: record shows Jerome received indictment, reviewed factual basis with counsel, any omission was harmless and did not affect substantial rights | No reversible error; any omission was at most harmless and factual basis was sufficient; Rule 11/due process claim fails |
| Whether Jerome was entitled to a mitigating-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a) | Jerome: he was substantially less culpable than average; court relied on outdated Guidelines, misunderstood conspiracy law, and made erroneous factual findings | Government: court adopted PSR findings, applied correct legal standard, weighed § 3B1.2 commentary factors and reasonably denied adjustment | Affirmed; district court’s factual finding that Jerome was not a minimal/minor participant was plausible and lawfully applied |
| Whether district court relied on an outdated Guidelines version or misunderstood conspiracy law | Jerome: statements at sentencing show reliance on older Guidelines and misunderstanding of conspiracy | Government: record shows proper standard cited, no reliance on outdated version or legal misunderstanding | No error found in court’s statements or legal standard application |
| Whether Jerome should have avoided a two-level § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement because of a mitigating role adjustment | Jerome: if mitigating-role applied, enhancement would be inapplicable | Government: because no mitigating-role adjustment was warranted, enhancement stands | Affirmed; enhancement properly applied since no mitigating-role reduction was warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (Rule 11 harmless-error and plea-factual-basis principles)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 831 F.3d 663 (5th Cir. 2016) (sufficiency of factual basis for drug-conspiracy pleas)
- United States v. Sanchez-Villarreal, 857 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2017) (review of mitigating-role factual findings)
- United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2016) (application of § 3B1.2 commentary factors)
- United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2013) (district court may adopt PSR factual findings at sentencing)