United States v. Sayers ( 2021 )

Case: 21-40351 Document: 00516101814 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 19, 2021
No. 21-40351
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Carlton Chadbourne Sayers,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:17-CR-46-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Carlton Chadbourne Sayers appeals his guilty-plea conviction of and
sentences for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1028A, 1343. The district court sentenced Sayers to a total of 132 months
in prison and three years of supervised release.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-40351 Document: 00516101814 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2021
No. 21-40351
Sayers contends that the district court erred in concluding that his
guilty plea was knowing and voluntary because he was erroneously advised of
the statutory maximum term of supervised release for the wire fraud charge.
Additionally, he asserts that his plea was unknowing because he was unaware
when he pleaded guilty that the district court would deny him a reduction to
his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The record establishes that the
magistrate judge at rearraignment and the written plea agreement correctly
advised Sayers of the five-year statutory maximum term of supervised release
as to the charge of wire fraud affecting a financial institution. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1343, 3583(b)(1), 3559(a)(2). Sayers thus shows no error, much less a
clear or obvious one, on this unpreserved challenge. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(1)(H); United States v. Castro–Trevino, 464 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir.
2006).
The record also establishes that the magistrate judge and the written
plea agreement both advised Sayers that the district court was not bound by
the parties’ stipulations in the plea agreement, including the stipulation as to
an offense level reduction under § 3E1.1. More importantly, the magistrate
judge correctly informed Sayers of the statutory maximum penalties for the
charged offenses; Sayers thus was aware of the relevant consequences of his
plea of guilty, and he has shown no clear or obvious error in the district
court’s acceptance of his plea as knowing and voluntary. See Castro–Trevino,
464 F.3d at 541; United States v. Guerra, 94 F.3d 989, 995 (5th Cir. 1996).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2