United States v. Stull: Fourth Circuit Clarifies the Defendant’s Burden of Showing Prejudice for Rule 11 Omissions on Plain-Error Review

Introduction

United States v. Jerry Stull, No. 24-4340 (4th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025), concerns a defendant who pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). Although the district court failed to advise Stull of the maximum statutory penalty during the Rule 11 plea colloquy, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and 63-month sentence. The Court confronted three core issues:

whether the Rule 11 error warranted reversal under plain-error review;
whether the district court afforded Stull an adequate opportunity to allocute under Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii); and
whether the sentencing explanation satisfied procedural reasonableness requirements.

The case therefore squarely addresses the defendant’s burden to demonstrate prejudice when a court omits the maximum-penalty warning, and it reinforces the limited but meaningful rights of allocution and sentencing explanation.

Summary of the Judgment

Applying the four-part plain-error framework, the panel (Judges King, Wynn, and Harris) held:

Rule 11 Error: The district court plainly erred by not informing Stull of the maximum possible sentence; however, reversal is unwarranted because Stull failed to show a “reasonable probability” that he would have forgone the guilty plea had he known the maximum.
Allocution: The sentencing judge did not abuse his discretion when he limited the duration and scope of Stull’s allocution; the opportunity provided was “sufficient.”
Sentencing Reasonableness: The court expressly calculated the Guidelines range, addressed § 3553(a) factors, and articulated a minimally adequate explanation; the within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) – Governs counsel’s filing of a merits-less brief; triggered the Court’s independent review.
United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2018) – Articulates the four-prong plain-error standard.
United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597 (2013) – Defines “substantial rights” in guilty-plea cases: defendant must show a reasonable probability of a different plea decision.
United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2009) – Emphasizes that failure to state maximum penalty is not per se prejudicial; defendants plead guilty for many reasons.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) and its progeny (Lewis, Blue, Lozano) – Outline procedural reasonableness and the need for individualized sentencing explanations.
Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301 (1961); Ashe v. North Carolina, 586 F.2d 334 (4th Cir. 1978) – Frame the scope and permissible limits on the right of allocution.

The Fourth Circuit leaned heavily on Massenburg to confirm that an omitted maximum-penalty advisement does not automatically satisfy the third plain-error prong. The combination of Davila and Massenburg created the analytical fulcrum: Stull needed affirmatively to explain how the omission influenced his plea decision. Absent such evidence, the Court found no substantial-rights violation.

2. Legal Reasoning

Plain-Error Framework. The Court sequentially applied the requisite four steps:

Error – Failure to announce the maximum penalty violated Rule 11(b)(1)(H).
Plainness – The error was “clear” under settled precedent.
Substantial Rights – Stull provided no affidavit, statement, or record basis suggesting the missing information affected his choice to plead guilty. The Court reiterated that prejudice is not presumed for Rule 11 mistakes.
Integrity of Proceedings – Because the error did not undermine fairness or public reputation, correction was unnecessary.

Allocution. The panel acknowledged an “absolute” right to speak, yet cited Ashe and subsequent circuit authority for the proposition that reasonable temporal or thematic limits are permissible. The record reflected that:

Stull personally addressed the court;
The judge engaged him, seeking clarification; and
The court did not cut short relevant mitigation.

Sentencing Explanation. Although terse, the district judge referenced:

Stull’s criminal history;
Community safety concerns;
The need to deter recidivism.

Under Blue and Lozano, such a focused narrative can suffice if it shows genuine consideration of arguments and § 3553(a) factors.

3. Impact of the Judgment

The case plants a cautionary flag for defense counsel planning to challenge plea colloquies on appeal:

Record Development. Counsel should create a factual record at the plea or sentencing stage (e.g., through testimony or affidavit) indicating that the defendant might have rejected the plea if fully informed.
Strategic Complexity. Omissions of maximum penalties remain legally erroneous, but Stull cements that appellants must marry the error to individualized prejudice or face affirmance.
Trial Courts. Although the judgment does not excuse Rule 11 compliance, it provides reassurance that inadvertent omissions will not automatically trigger reversals absent demonstrable prejudice.
Allocution & Sentencing. The decision confirms district courts retain discretion to manage allocution length and to offer succinct—but meaningful—sentencing rationales.

In subsequent cases, expect prosecutors to cite Stull when arguing that defendants have “merely formal” plea-colloquy objections lacking a prejudice showing, while defense counsel will view it as a roadmap for what evidence is required to prevail.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Plain-Error Review: A four-step appellate test for errors not raised below—error, plainness, effect on substantial rights, and harm to judicial integrity. All four must be met for relief.
Rule 11 Plea Colloquy: The scripted set of questions a judge must ask to ensure the plea is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Missing advisements (like the maximum sentence) violate the rule.
Substantial Rights: Rights that, if violated, are likely to have affected the outcome. In plea contexts, defendant must show he probably would not have pled guilty but for the error.
Allocution: The defendant’s opportunity to speak before sentencing—often used to express remorse or provide mitigating facts.
Guidelines Range / Within-Guidelines Presumption: The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines produce an advisory sentencing range; sentences inside that span are presumed reasonable on appeal.

Conclusion

United States v. Stull reinforces an exacting burden on defendants who seek to undo their guilty pleas due to Rule 11 omissions. While acknowledging the error, the Fourth Circuit insisted on a concrete showing of prejudice, thereby safeguarding the finality of pleas and discouraging purely technical appeals. It simultaneously clarified the permissible limits on allocution and validated concise—but adequate—sentencing explanations. Practitioners should heed the decision’s twin lessons: trial courts must conscientiously perform Rule 11 inquiries, and defense counsel must compile evidence of actual decisional impact if they hope to overturn a plea on appellate review. In the broader jurisprudential landscape, Stull harmonizes Fourth Circuit precedent with Supreme Court guidance, illuminating the balance between procedural precision and pragmatic finality in federal criminal practice.