United States v. Lucas Youngblood

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: July 7, 2023
• Docket: 22-3790
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 23a0307n.06

No. 22-3790

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jul 07, 2023 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE LUCAS K. YOUNGBLOOD, ) NORTHERN DISTRICT OF Defendant-Appellant. ) OHIO ) OPINION )

Before: COLE, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Lucas Youngblood pled guilty to being a felon in possession

of a firearm. During the plea colloquy, the district court asked whether Youngblood understood

that one element of the offense was a prior felony conviction; Youngblood said yes. The

government then said it could prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt because Tennessee

had convicted Youngblood of aggravated domestic assault, a Class C felony; and Youngblood

agreed that was true. Youngblood later objected to the presentence report, arguing that the

Tennessee conviction was not, in fact, a felony conviction. But Youngblood quickly withdrew

that objection. The district court thereafter imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 36 months.

Youngblood now appeals, arguing again that the Tennessee conviction was not a

felony conviction. The government responds that Youngblood waived this argument. We agree:

a voluntary and unconditional guilty plea waives “any subsequent non-jurisdictional attack on the

conviction.” United States v. Corp, 668 F.3d 379, 384 (6th Cir. 2012); Fed. R. Crim. No. 22-3790, United States v. Youngblood

P. 11(a)(2). That is a claims-processing rule that we must enforce when the government invokes

it. See United States v. Hack, 999 F.3d 980, 983 (6th Cir. 2021). Here, Youngblood pled guilty

unconditionally, without reserving the right to challenge the Tennessee conviction. Youngblood

thus waived the only argument before us. Indeed, Youngblood does not even dispute that

conclusion.

We therefore enforce Youngblood’s waiver by dismissing the appeal. See United States v.

Hollins-Johnson, 6 F.4th 682, 685 (6th Cir. 2021). We also deny as moot the government’s motion

to take judicial notice.