The Fifth Circuit affirmed a sentence for enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity. The court held that the district court did not commit plain error by allowing counsel to withdraw objections to the presentence report.
Background
Stephen Andrew Cipkin appealed his sentence following a guilty plea conviction for two counts of enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity. He argued that the district court committed plain error by allowing counsel to withdraw his objections to the presentence report, which conceded a guidelines range of life imprisonment without ensuring he understood the consequences.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that it had not previously addressed the specific issue raised by Cipkin. Consequently, the district court’s failure to provide the desired admonishment was not considered plainly erroneous under existing precedent.
What it means going forward
The decision clarifies that in the absence of prior Fifth Circuit precedent on a specific procedural issue regarding withdrawal of objections, a district court’s failure to provide a specific admonishment does not constitute plain error.
