Whether the district court was improperly involved in plea negotiations; FedRCrimP 11(c)(1); Lafler v Cooper; Prejudice; Harmless error; Motion to suppress evidence seized in a vehicle search; Whether an FIP conviction violated the Second Amendment; United States v Williams; Classification as a “career offender”; Whether the district court erred by not confining itself to Shepard documents; Shepard v United States; Authority to resentence; FedRCrimP 35(a); Invited error

The court held that while the district court violated Rule 11(c)(1) by involving itself in defendant-Hoover’s plea negotiations, the error was harmless where he failed to establish that he was prejudiced. It also held that the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress or in classifying him as a career offender, and that his FIP conviction did not violate the Second Amendment. Finally, he invited any error in the rescheduling of his resentencing hearing, which was originally timely convened within Rule 35(a)’s 14-day window. Hoover was indicted on drug and firearm charges after a traffic violation resulted in a search revealing drugs, packaging materials, and a firearm. He initially pled not guilty, later indicated that he wanted to plead guilty, and then stated at the change-of-plea hearing that he wished to fire his attorney for refusing to file a motion to suppress. He eventually went to trial and a jury convicted him on all counts. On appeal, the court held that the “district court violated Rule 11(c)(1) when it stated clearly on the record that it would not give Hoover an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction in any plea bargain the parties negotiated.” Hoover clearly indicated that “he would have pleaded guilty, had the court not taken acceptance of responsibility off the table.” But the court concluded that the error was harmless. Despite the lack of a plea agreement, “the district court decided to award Hoover an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction at sentencing. That [he] ultimately was not credited with it cannot be traced to any judicial interference with plea negotiations; it was Hoover’s post-conviction drug activity, and his insistence on denying it, that lost him the previously granted reduction.” Thus, there was no prejudicial error. The court also upheld the denial of the motion to suppress where the officer “had reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity to briefly continue the stop to inquire about the possibility of drugs in the vehicle.” His Second Amendment argument as to his FIP conviction failed where he did not establish “that he is not dangerous.” As to his career offender classification, there was no Shepard violation where the indictment contained all the necessary information. Affirmed.