Vernell Woodard appealed his guilty-plea conviction and sentence arising from his involvement in a drug deal and an armed robbery. The case was originally heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On appeal, Woodard challenged the adequacy of the factual basis for his plea and argued that the district court committed reversible error by failing to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, specifically regarding the notice of restitution authority. He also raised claims regarding the factual accuracy of his sentence and the reasonableness of the sentence imposed.
The panel, writing per curiam, first confirmed that the record contained an adequate factual basis for Woodard's guilty plea to brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, citing United States v. Trejo. The court then addressed Woodard's claim of plain error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. While acknowledging that the district court did not inform Woodard of 'the court's authority to order restitution' as required by Rule 11(b)(1)(K), the court applied the standard from United States v. Dominguez Benitez. Under this standard, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, they would not have entered the plea. The Fifth Circuit found that Woodard failed to argue or demonstrate that he would have rejected his guilty plea had he been informed of the restitution authority. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the district court based the sentence on clearly erroneous facts or committed any plain procedural errors in imposing the sentence. Finally, the court determined that Woodard did not show his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The district court's judgment is affirmed without modification or remand. This decision reinforces the high bar for proving harmless error in Rule 11 restitution notice cases, requiring defendants to show a reasonable probability that the outcome of their plea would have changed. It also confirms that absent specific arguments regarding factual errors or procedural improprieties, sentences in such cases will stand if the factual basis for the plea is adequate.