United States v. Otis: Sixth Circuit Reaffirms That the Simultaneous Sale of Firearms and Narcotics Satisfies § 924(c)’s “During and in Relation To” Element and Clarifies Plain-Error Review of Guilty Pleas

Introduction

The recent Sixth Circuit opinion in United States v. Jeremiah Otis (No. 24-5791, decided 9 July 2025) delivers a concise but noteworthy reaffirmation of two doctrinal points that often surface in federal firearms-and-drug prosecutions:

The simultaneous sale of firearms and narcotics in a single transaction satisfies the “during and in relation to” requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
On direct appeal, an unpreserved challenge to the knowing and voluntary nature of a guilty plea is reviewed only for plain error, and a well-conducted Rule 11 colloquy will ordinarily erect a “formidable barrier” to relief.

While the panel (Judges Thapar, Nalbandian, and Readler) ultimately affirmed the district court’s 60-month sentence, its discussion synthesises earlier precedents, clarifies the evidentiary threshold for the Rule 11 factual basis, and signals the continued reluctance of courts to entertain ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal.

Summary of the Judgment

Jeremiah Otis pleaded guilty to one count under § 924(c) after selling three firearms and three fentanyl pills to undercover ATF agents. He later argued that his plea was involuntary and that counsel was ineffective. The Sixth Circuit:

Affirmed the validity of the guilty plea, finding no plain error in the Rule 11 colloquy or factual-basis determination.
Declined to reach the ineffective-assistance claim, deeming it premature for direct appeal and better suited to § 2255 collateral review.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (1992) – Groundwork for the constitutional requirement that pleas be knowing and voluntary.
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) – Defines a voluntary plea as free from coercion and entered with understanding of consequences.
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) – Characterises plea-hearing transcripts as a “formidable barrier” against later collateral attacks.
United States v. Randolph, 230 F.3d 243 (6th Cir. 2000) – Addresses “illusory” plea bargains; distinguished here because Otis did receive tangible benefits.
United States v. Rivera, 502 F. App’x 554 (6th Cir. 2012) – Holds that concurrent sale of guns and drugs satisfies § 924(c).
United States v. Henry, 819 F.3d 856 (6th Cir. 2016) – Applies Rivera for sentencing enhancements.
United States v. Edwards, No. 23-5007, 2025 WL 789558 (6th Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (Readler, J., concurring) – Elaborates on the phrase “during and in relation to.”
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) & United States v. McCreary-Redd, 475 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2007) – Provide the “some evidence” standard for Rule 11 factual basis.
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) – States that ineffective-assistance claims should ordinarily be raised via § 2255.

Legal Reasoning

Plain-Error Framework. Because Otis did not object below, the court applied Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). Under plain-error review, Otis had to show (1) error, (2) that is clear or obvious, (3) affecting substantial rights, and (4) seriously affecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. He failed at the first step: the panel found no error.
Rule 11 Colloquy Adequacy. The district judge methodically confirmed Otis’s literacy, mental clarity, comprehension of the charge, awareness of the mandatory 60-month minimum, and freedom from coercion. This satisfied both constitutional due-process requirements and Rule 11(b)(1)-(2).
Factual Basis. The sale of firearms in the same parking-lot transaction as the fentanyl pills constituted “some evidence” that Otis carried the firearms during and in relation to drug trafficking. Drawing on Rivera, the panel reasoned that weapons can facilitate a drug sale even when they are themselves the items sold.
Illusory-Bargain Argument Rejected. Unlike the defendant in Randolph, Otis received concrete concessions: dismissal of three counts and a recommendation for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. Thus, the plea was not illusory.
Ineffective Assistance Deferred. Following Massaro, the court left the Sixth-Amendment complaint for potential § 2255 proceedings where a fuller record could be developed.

Impact

Although the case is “Not Recommended for Publication,” it is precedential within the Sixth Circuit under Rule 32.1 because it is an “unpublished opinion” that can still be cited for its persuasive value. Its practical ramifications include:

Prosecutorial Charging Strategy. U.S. Attorneys in the Sixth Circuit can confidently charge § 924(c) when firearms and narcotics are exchanged simultaneously, even if the guns are part of the barter.
Defense Counsel Advisories. Defense lawyers must be mindful that challenging a Rule 11 colloquy on direct appeal faces steep odds unless specific, preserved errors exist.
Clarification of “Factual Basis” Threshold. The reaffirmation that “some evidence” suffices continues to set a low bar for prosecutors at plea hearings.
Post-conviction Litigation. The panel’s reminder that ineffective-assistance claims are ordinarily relegated to § 2255 proceedings may influence defendants to develop such claims more fully before raising them.

Complex Concepts Simplified

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A): A federal statute that adds an extra, consecutive sentence when a defendant uses or carries a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime or violent crime. The minimum is typically five years.
“During and in Relation To”: Courts interpret this conjunctive phrase to mean the firearm must have some purpose or effect with respect to the drug crime—even potential facilitation is enough.
Rule 11 Plea Colloquy: A judge’s questioning of the defendant to ensure the plea is informed, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
Plain Error Review: An appellate standard used when an objection was not raised below. The appellant must show an obvious error that affected substantial rights and the integrity of the proceedings.
Illusory Plea Bargain: An agreement that provides no real benefit to the defendant—courts will scrutinise such bargains for voluntariness.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Under Strickland v. Washington, a defendant must show deficient performance and prejudice. Such claims usually require a post-conviction evidentiary hearing.

Conclusion

United States v. Otis underscores two enduring truths in federal criminal practice: first, the threshold for establishing a factual basis under § 924(c) is modest when firearms and drugs change hands together; second, a meticulously conducted Rule 11 colloquy makes overturning a guilty plea on direct appeal an uphill climb. Although the panel deferred the ineffective-assistance claim, its adherence to Massaro serves as a reminder that such arguments are generally reserved for collateral proceedings. In the broader legal landscape, the decision fortifies prosecutorial reliance on § 924(c) in barter-style transactions and reinforces the judiciary’s confidence in the plea-hearing process as a safeguard of constitutional rights.