Background
Marvin Rashaad Cummings was indicted on six Hobbs Act robbery counts, two counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and one count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. He pleaded guilty to two robbery counts and one firearm count, Count Eight, under a written agreement providing that the government would dismiss the remaining counts and recommend 25 years’ imprisonment.
The plea agreement stated that Count Eight carried a 25-year mandatory minimum because Cummings had a prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Although Cummings otherwise acknowledged the 25-year minimum during the plea proceedings, the district court mistakenly stated during the Rule 11 hearing that the minimum was seven years. The presentence report identified the minimum as 25 years, and Cummings did not object. At sentencing, defense counsel confirmed that the parties had agreed to the 25-year minimum, and the court imposed one day on each robbery count and 25 years on Count Eight.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Applying plain-error review, the court concluded that even if the district court’s incorrect seven-year advisement was error, Cummings failed to show that it affected his substantial rights.
The record showed that Cummings repeatedly acknowledged the 25-year minimum, including during the plea proceedings and in the written plea agreement. He also did not object when the presentence report specified that minimum or when defense counsel explained it at sentencing. The court therefore rejected his claim that the incorrect statement caused him to misunderstand or accept the plea.
The court also denied as improper and futile Cummings’s motion to amend his opening brief with a new declaration asserting that the mistaken advisement caused him to sign the plea agreement. It found that assertion inconsistent with the record, particularly his failure to object at sentencing when the district judge expressly asked why the minimum was 25 years rather than seven.
Key Takeaways
- An incorrect Rule 11 advisement does not warrant reversal under plain-error review unless the defendant shows an effect on substantial rights.
- A written plea agreement and the defendant’s repeated acknowledgments of the correct mandatory minimum can defeat a claim that a contrary statement caused misunderstanding.
- Failing to object to the correct minimum in the presentence report and at sentencing can strongly undermine a later challenge to the plea.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that appellate courts assess an erroneous plea warning against the full record rather than in isolation. Where the agreement, plea proceedings, presentence report, and sentencing record demonstrate awareness of the correct penalty, a defendant may be unable to establish the prejudice required for plain-error relief.
The unpublished opinion also underscores the difficulty of using a new appellate declaration to contradict contemporaneous statements and omissions reflected in the district-court record.