United States v. Myers, No. 13-10580 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued that the settlement conference he voluntarily participated in violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 because the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davila prohibits any judicial involvement in plea negotiation, even when the judicial participation is both requested by the defendant and sanctioned by the district court’s local rules. The court agreed with defendant's claim, concluding that Davila makes clear that Rule 11(c)(1) imposes a categorical bar on judicial participation in plea negotiations. However, because defendant failed to object at the time to judicial participation, the court reviewed his claim for plain error. In this case, defendant failed to establish that the alleged error affected his substantial rights because the record is bereft of evidence indicating that he suffered any prejudice due to the magistrate judge’s participation in the settlement conference. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a criminal judgment in a case in which the defendant and the government reached a plea deal during a settlement conference conducted by a magistrate judge. The panel agreed with the defendant that United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013), makes clear that Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) imposes a categorical bar on judicial participation in plea negotiations, even when the judicial participation is both requested by the defendant and sanctioned by the district court’s local rules. The panel held that Rule 11(c)(1) is waivable by the defendant, but could not say on this record that the defendant knowingly waived Rule 11(c)(1). Because the defendant failed to object at the time to judicial participation, the panel reviewed the defendant’s unpreserved claim that the settlement procedure violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. The panel held that the defendant failed to establish the alleged error affected his substantial rights because the record is bereft of evidence indicating that he suffered any prejudice due to the magistrate judge’s participation in the settlement conference. The panel observed that the settlement conference helped the defendant reach a plea deal with the government—something the defendant vigorously pursued during the nearly three years of pretrial proceedings—which UNITED STATES V. MYERS 3 resulted in the defendant receiving a below-Guidelines sentence.
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.