United States v. Bennette — Fifth Circuit upheld sentence despite forfeiture omissions

Case
United States of America v. Paris Lynn Bennette
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Judge
Catharina Haynes (George W. Bush, 2008); James E. Graves Jr. (Barack Obama, 2011); Irma Carrillo Ramirez (Joe Biden, 2023)
Date Decided
September 25, 2026
Docket No.
26-40035
Topics
Criminal Procedure; Guilty Pleas; Forfeiture; Plain Error
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Paris Lynn Bennette pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of Texas to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. His indictment and arraignment provided notice that forfeiture was sought, and the government later filed an unopposed motion for a preliminary order of forfeiture.

On appeal, Bennette argued for the first time that the district court failed to advise him of the applicable forfeiture before accepting his guilty plea and failed to include the forfeiture in its oral pronouncement of sentence. Because he had prior notice of the forfeiture and raised no objection below, the Fifth Circuit reviewed both claims for plain error.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Even assuming that each omission was clear or obvious error, the court held that Bennette failed to show that either affected his substantial rights, as required under plain-error review.

The full record did not establish a reasonable probability that Bennette would have declined to plead guilty had the district court discussed forfeiture at rearraignment, given the notice in the indictment and at arraignment and his failure to object to later forfeiture proceedings. Nor did the record show a reasonable probability that orally announcing forfeiture at sentencing would have caused the district court to impose a smaller forfeiture amount or none at all. The court also rejected Bennette’s reliance on United States v. Diggles because he had notice and an opportunity to object.

Key Takeaways

  • Unpreserved challenges to forfeiture omissions are reviewed for plain error when the defendant had prior notice of the forfeiture.
  • A defendant challenging a plea must show a reasonable probability that proper advice about forfeiture would have changed the decision to plead guilty.
  • Failure to pronounce forfeiture orally does not warrant reversal absent a reasonable probability that oral pronouncement would have produced a lesser forfeiture or no forfeiture.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that procedural omissions involving forfeiture will not automatically invalidate a guilty plea or sentence on plain-error review. Prior notice, an opportunity to object, and the defendant’s response throughout the proceedings are central to whether an omission affected substantial rights.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top