U.S. v. Coleman

Dist. Ct. did not plainly err in accepting defendant’s guilty plea to drug conspiracy charge, even though Dist. Ct. did not strictly comply with Rule 11 when it failed to expressly discuss during defendant’s plea colloquy collateral attack waiver contained in plea agreement. Record showed that Dist. Ct. covered appellate waiver in plea colloquy, and that defendant indicated during plea colloquy that his attorney explained entire agreement and that he (defendant) understood said agreement. As such, evidence of defendant’s understanding of agreement was adequate substitute for verbal in-court colloquy about collateral-attack waiver. Defendant also failed to show, outside his bare contention, that he would have refused agreement and taken case to trial had he known of collateral attack waiver, especially where defendant faced mandatory life sentence, and instant agreement offered defendant opportunity to receive lower sentence. Defendant, though was entitled to new sentencing hearing where Dist. Ct. failed to justify certain terms of defendant's supervised release.