USA v. Sayers, No. 21-40351 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 No. 21-40351 Summary Calendar November 19, 2021 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 * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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
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.
