U.S. v. Austin

Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in accepting defendant’s guilty plea to charges of bank fraud, aggregated identify theft and obstruction of justice, where record showed that Dist. Ct. adequately told defendant that it would calculate operative sentencing-guideline range and consider possible departures and other sentencing factors under section 3553(a). Fact that Dist. Ct. failed to inform defendant of possible forfeiture of $4.3 million in assets did not render plea involuntary, where defendant failed to establish that he would not have pleaded guilty had Dist. Ct. explained potential of forfeiture. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that plea was involuntary because: (1) his plea lacked written plea agreement; (2) he made plea during mid-trial; and (3) he obtained no benefit from govt. for entering into instant plea. Remand, though, was required as to Dist. Ct.’s entry of $9.1 million restitution order, where, with respect to 19 properties, said order included lenders that did not qualify as “financial institutions” for purposes of obtaining restitution order under 18 USC section 20(10).