USA v. Reginald Mosley, No. 13-20675 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-20675 Document: 00512888945 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 13-20675 Summary Calendar January 5, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. REGINALD MOSLEY, also known as Reggo, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CR-679-6 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Reginald Mosley challenges his guilty-plea convictions for: conspiracy to commit bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; three counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a); and discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). He was sentenced, inter alia, to 525 months’ imprisonment, including a consecutive 120-month sentence for his § 924(c) conviction. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 13-20675 Document: 00512888945 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2015 No. 13-20675 Mosley claims the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by failing to inform him that this 120-month sentence must be imposed consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). Because Mosley did not raise this issue in district court, review is only for plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Under that standard, Mosely must show a forfeited plain (clear or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To establish that his substantial rights have been affected, he “must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea”. United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the error, but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Pretermitting whether the court committed clear or obvious error by not informing Mosley the sentence must be imposed consecutively, Mosley has not shown his substantial rights were affected by demonstrating that, but for the failure to inform him that this sentence must be served consecutively, he would not have pleaded guilty. E.g., Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83. The record shows Mosley was advised the sentence for this count must be served consecutively, such as his written plea agreement and warnings by the magistrate judge during two earlier court appearances. In addition, Mosley did not object to the post-plea presentence investigation report’s statement that this sentence must be imposed consecutively, or object on this basis at sentencing. E.g., United States v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 F.3d 945, 954–55 (5th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 950 (2014). AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
