United States v. Wayne Thomas, Jr., 17-10838

Defendant Wayne Thomas, Jr. pleaded guilty to (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥280 grams of cocaine base and (2) possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon.
On appeal (first time raising the point), Thomas argued his plea was not knowing and voluntary because the district court failed to provide him pre-plea draft Sentencing Guidelines calculations.
The district court conducted a Rule 11 plea colloquy: explained maximum and minimum penalties, said it would consider the Guidelines but could not determine the advisory range until after a presentence report, and warned the sentence could differ from counsel’s estimate.
Thomas affirmed he understood the consequences, had discussed Guidelines with counsel, had no further questions, admitted the factual proffer, and the court accepted the plea as knowing and voluntary.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed under the plain-error standard because Thomas raised the Rule 11/constitutional objection for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court must provide pre-plea draft guideline calculations before accepting a guilty plea	Thomas: pre-plea draft guidelines are required for a plea to be knowing and voluntary	Government: Rule 11 does not require pre-plea guideline disclosure; existing colloquy satisfied Rule 11	No. Rule 11 does not mandate pre-plea draft guideline calculations; no plain error in accepting plea
Whether the district court plainly erred under the plain-error standard	Thomas: failure to provide drafts was a plain and obvious error	Government: absence of binding Supreme Court/Eleventh Circuit precedent showing such error; colloquy cured any concern	No plain error; proposed rule lacks controlling precedent
Whether any error affected substantial rights (would Thomas have pled differently)	Thomas: would have declined plea without draft calculations	Government: Thomas affirmed understanding at colloquy and nothing contradicts that	Thomas failed to show a reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty; substantial-rights prong not met
Whether court should exercise discretion to correct any error (fairness/integrity)	Thomas: disclosure requirement affects fairness of proceedings	Government: even if error existed, not shown to affect substantial rights or precedent	Court declined to exercise discretion; convictions affirmed

United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir.) (discusses Rule 11 core principles and plea colloquy requirements)
United States v. Gonzalez, 834 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir.) (plain-error correction framework)
United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir.) (no plain error where no circuit or Supreme Court precedent resolves the issue)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (Sup. Ct.) (defendant must show reasonable probability of different outcome to prevail on plain-error challenge to plea)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (Sup. Ct.) (Rule 11’s purpose to ensure pleas are knowing and voluntary)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (Sup. Ct.) (constitutional requirement that guilty pleas be voluntarily and knowingly entered)