Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Paris Lynn Bennette pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in the Eastern District of Texas. His indictment included notice of an applicable forfeiture, and forfeiture was also addressed at his arraignment.
On appeal, Bennette argued for the first time that the district court failed to advise him about forfeiture before accepting his guilty plea and failed to include forfeiture in its oral pronouncement of sentence. Because he had prior notice of the forfeiture and had not raised these objections below, the Fifth Circuit reviewed both claims for plain error.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Even assuming both omissions were clear or obvious errors, the court held that Bennette failed to show that either affected his substantial rights, as required under plain-error review.
The full record did not establish a reasonable probability that Bennette would have declined to plead guilty had the district court discussed forfeiture at rearraignment. He had received notice through the indictment and arraignment and did not object to later references to forfeiture, including the government’s unopposed motion for a preliminary forfeiture order.
Nor did the record establish a reasonable probability that the district court would have ordered less forfeiture—or none—had it orally pronounced the forfeiture at sentencing. Bennette’s reliance on United States v. Diggles did not change the result because he received notice and an opportunity to object.
Key Takeaways
- Unpreserved challenges to forfeiture omissions were reviewed only for plain error because Bennette had prior notice of the forfeiture.
- A plea-stage omission did not warrant reversal without a reasonable probability that proper advice would have changed the defendant’s decision to plead guilty.
- Failure to pronounce forfeiture orally at sentencing was not reversible absent a reasonable probability that oral pronouncement would have produced a lesser forfeiture or no forfeiture.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that procedural omissions involving criminal forfeiture do not automatically require reversal under plain-error review. Prior notice, an opportunity to object, and a defendant’s failure to contest the forfeiture can prevent a showing that the omissions affected substantial rights.