United States v. Scott Detloff, 794 F.3d 588

Background

Defendant Scott Detloff was arrested after a traffic stop uncovered multiple falsified IDs and over thirty pieces of mail; a subsequent home search recovered 112 stolen business checks and equipment used for counterfeiting and check fraud.
A federal indictment charged multiple counts; Detloff pled guilty under a Rule 11 plea agreement to theft of mail (18 U.S.C. § 1708) in exchange for dismissal of other counts and an agreed guidelines range of 57–71 months. The plea included an appeal waiver of conviction and most sentencing appeals.
During the plea colloquy the district court misstated one sentence of the written appeal waiver (creating an apparent carve‑out for two specific guidelines disputes), though the written plea and most oral statements made clear the waiver was broad.
After plea, Detloff filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea claiming Speedy Trial and detainer violations; his appointed counsel sought to withdraw, citing ethical conflict over filing meritless motions, but the court denied withdrawal and ordered counsel to remain as standby counsel.
At sentencing the court imposed 60 months on the mail theft count and later imposed a 24‑month supervised‑release violation term to run consecutively; disagreement among defendant, counsel, and government surfaced at sentencing about classification of the supervised‑release violation.
On appeal the government conceded the supervised‑release sentence rested on an erroneous guidelines classification (treating the Michigan resisting‑officer conviction as a categorical violent offense), and the Sixth Circuit vacated the supervised‑release sentence and remanded for resentencing while dismissing challenges to the mail‑theft conviction under the valid appeal waiver.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity/scope of appeal waiver	Govt: waiver bars review of plea withdrawal and sentencing claims	Detloff: waiver not knowing/voluntary because district court misstated waiver at plea colloquy (Rule 11 error)	Waiver upheld; misstatement did not preserve claims because defendant otherwise knowingly waived appeals and did not rely on the inadvertent carve‑out
Rule 11(b)(1)(N) misstatement	N/A	Detloff: district court failed to properly inform re: appeal waiver	Error was present but did not undo the overall knowing waiver because defendant acknowledged waiver and did not challenge the two disputed guideline determinations
Constructive denial / ineffective assistance of counsel	Detloff: counsel’s refusal to pursue pro se motions, adverse statements, and refusal to argue Grade B classification amounted to constructive denial	Govt: record insufficient for resolution on direct appeal; counsel’s conduct did not amount to per se deprivation	Claim dismissed without prejudice for post‑conviction proceedings; record inadequate for resolving ineffective assistance on direct appeal
Supervised‑release guideline classification	Govt concedes error	Detloff: state resisting conviction is divisible; cannot be treated as categorical violent offense without Shepard proof	Court vacated supervised‑release sentence and remanded for resentencing; government conceded Shepard issue

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Murdock, 398 F.3d 491 (6th Cir.) (standard for enforcing appeal waivers)
United States v. Toth, 668 F.3d 374 (6th Cir.) (appeal waiver covers challenge to denial of motion to withdraw plea)
United States v. Melvin, [citation="557 F. App'x 390"] (6th Cir.) (district court misstatement of appeal waiver can vitiate waiver if record shows reliance)
Moss v. Hofbauer, 286 F.3d 851 (6th Cir.) (constructive denial of counsel and structural‑error doctrine)
Cronic, 466 U.S. 658 (U.S.) (circumstances in which counsel’s failure is structural error)
United States v. Mosely, 575 F.3d 603 (6th Cir.) (divisible statutes and Shepard requirements for sentencing enhancements)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S.) (use of Shepard materials to determine whether prior conviction qualifies categorically)