Defendant Could Not Withdraw First Two Guilty Pleas After Third Case Uncovers Search Warrant Anomaly

US v. Milam: First, Milam, “the leader of the Aryan Kings” gang, was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after the execution of a search warrant at his home uncovered drugs and multiple firearms. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. Second, months later (and after his initial plea), Milam was charged in a second indictment with drug offenses related to the search. He also pleaded guilty to that indictment, but pursuant to a plea agreement.

While in custody awaiting sentencing, Milam “began to receive drugs and other contraband” mailed to him from gang members disguised as “legal mail” bearing the return address of Milam’s attorney. This blew up when a package was “returned” for insufficient postage to his lawyer (who opened it, found drugs, and promptly withdrew). Milam also assaulted “multiple sheriff’s deputies” during an incident at the jail. Third, therefore, Milam was charged with assaulting persons assisting federal law enforcement. During the pendency of that case, Milam’s new lawyer noted that the search warrant underlying the first two cases was missing every other page. When asked the Government provided a complete copy (there had been a scanning error during the initial discovery prep). Milam filed a motion to withdraw his prior guilty pleas, which was denied. He then pleaded guilty to the assault charge without a plea agreement. Ultimately, he was sentenced to 300 months in prison, a variance down from the advisory Guideline range of 360 months to life.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Milam’s convictions and sentence. The court held that the district court properly denied Milam’s motion to withdraw his first two guilty pleas. Not only were the Rule 11 hearings sufficient to show that Milam entered his pleas knowingly, but the late revelation of the search warrant did not undermine that. Particularly because the full search warrant and affidavit only made any potential suppression argument weaker. The court also agreed that Milam’s first lawyer had not been ineffective, crediting her testimony that she discussed the warrant issue with Milam, but that he was determined to enter a quick guilty plea in hopes of heading off the Government filing additional charges. The court also held that there as no error in denying Milam credit for acceptance of responsibility, although the Government agreed to it in the second-charge plea agreement, given Milam’s later conduct. Finally, the court concluded that Milam’s sentence was substantively reasonable.