Wigfall is recent and useful, but it is unpublished
On September 30, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Wigfall. The panel affirmed some issues but vacated the judgment as to Trevion Wigfall's guilty plea and remanded for a new Rule 11 plea hearing.
The opinion is unpublished and expressly states that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit. It nevertheless provides a current illustration of how that court applies Rule 11, plain-error review, the Armed Career Criminal Act, and Erlinger when the sentencing consequences of a plea were not adequately explained before acceptance.
Rule 11 requires the court to explain statutory sentencing exposure before accepting the plea
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1) requires a court to address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the defendant understands the nature of the charge, any maximum possible penalty, and any mandatory minimum penalty before the court accepts a guilty plea.
That timing matters. A presentence report or later sentencing discussion may disclose information that was missing at the plea hearing, but it does not recreate the decision the defendant made when trial rights were surrendered. The required understanding must exist when the plea is accepted.
The plea hearing did not identify the potentially applicable ACCA consequence
Wigfall pleaded guilty to four counts, including possession of a firearm by a person with a felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). At the plea hearing, the district court described the ordinary statutory exposure for that count but did not advise that the Armed Career Criminal Act could apply based on qualifying prior convictions.
The presentence report later identified three asserted ACCA predicates and also applied a career-offender enhancement. The Government then described the enhanced penalties at a later hearing, and Wigfall acknowledged the information. The Fourth Circuit still focused on what he had been told before the plea was accepted.
Later notice did not automatically cure the Rule 11 error
The Fourth Circuit concluded that the missing advisement was a Rule 11 error. Its analysis follows the basic distinction recognized in earlier Fourth Circuit decisions: Rule 11 does not require a court to predict the final advisory guideline range, but it does require disclosure of potentially applicable statutory minimum and maximum penalties.
The court's en banc decision in Lockhart and its earlier decision in Hairston likewise emphasize that a defendant considering a felon-in-possession plea must be told about potential ACCA exposure when the enhancement could apply. A later presentence report is not a substitute for the required pre-plea colloquy.
Because the issue was not preserved, Wigfall had to satisfy plain-error review
Wigfall did not move in the district court to withdraw his plea. The appellate court therefore reviewed the Rule 11 claim for plain error rather than under the standard that would apply to a preserved objection.
That required an error that was plain and affected substantial rights. In the plea context, the prejudice inquiry asks whether there is a reasonable probability that, without the error, the defendant would not have entered the plea. The inquiry is record specific; the existence of an error does not by itself guarantee relief.
The Government's later sentencing reduction did not eliminate prejudice
The Government obtained a reduction that produced a sentence below the enhanced exposure otherwise presented. The panel treated that reduction as mitigation, not as a complete cure for the materially different sentencing framework that had not been explained before the plea.
The court concluded that the record did not establish that the same plea and sentencing outcome would have followed under the properly explained framework. It therefore found the Rule 11 error affected substantial rights and warranted vacatur of the plea judgment.
The remedy was a new plea hearing, not automatic dismissal or a guaranteed lower sentence
The panel vacated the judgment with respect to Wigfall's guilty plea and remanded for a new Rule 11 hearing. It did not dismiss the indictment, decide guilt or innocence, or guarantee a lower sentence.
A Rule 11 remedy returns the case to a procedural point at which the plea decision can be made with the required information. What happens next depends on the charges, the parties' positions, the plea record, the sentencing statutes, any plea agreement, and the district court's rulings on remand.
The Erlinger different-occasions issue was separate—and harmless here
Erlinger v. United States holds that when ACCA's different-occasions finding increases the statutory penalty, the Constitution requires a unanimous jury to make that finding beyond a reasonable doubt unless the right is properly waived.
Wigfall also challenged the judicial determination that his predicate offenses occurred on different occasions. The Fourth Circuit held that any Erlinger error did not justify relief because the record conclusively established separate offenses and no properly instructed jury reasonably would have found otherwise. The plea-colloquy error and the different-occasions error therefore produced different outcomes in the same appeal.
ACCA exposure and guideline exposure should be analyzed separately
ACCA is a statute. When its requirements are met, 18 U.S.C. §924(e) changes the statutory punishment for a qualifying §922(g) conviction. Career-offender and other Chapter Four provisions operate through the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. Both can alter practical sentencing exposure, but they arise from different legal sources and may present different Rule 11 questions.
A reliable plea review should identify the ordinary statutory range, every asserted statutory enhancement, the factual and legal basis for each predicate conviction, the guideline provisions likely to be disputed, and what the court actually said before accepting the plea. Those categories should not be blended together.
The plea and sentencing record should be reconstructed document by document
A careful review should compare the indictment, any statutory-enhancement notice, plea agreement, Rule 11 transcript, factual basis, presentence report, objections, plea-withdrawal filings, sentencing transcript, judgment, and notice of appeal. The sequence often determines whether the defendant received timely notice and whether an error was preserved.
For ACCA issues, the record should also identify each alleged predicate, its statutory elements at the time of conviction, the approved Shepard materials, the dates and locations of the conduct, and any waiver or jury finding concerning separate occasions.
Wigfall does not reopen every final plea
Wigfall was a direct appeal and is unpublished. It does not create an automatic collateral remedy for every person who later learns that ACCA or a guideline enhancement applied. Finality rules, appeal waivers, procedural default, the one-year §2255 limitation period, harmless-error principles, and the specific circuit's precedent may control a later challenge.
This article provides general educational information, not legal advice, a finding that any plea is invalid, or a prediction of relief. The governing circuit, procedural posture, plea transcript, enhancement record, preservation history, dates, and available remedy require case-specific review.
- Obtain the complete Rule 11 transcript rather than relying on the judgment or presentence report.
- List every statutory minimum and maximum described before the plea was accepted.
- Separate ACCA predicates from career-offender and other guideline calculations.
- Identify whether the different-occasions question was admitted, waived, submitted to a jury, or decided by the judge.
- Compare later disclosures with the information available when the plea decision was made.
- Calculate all direct-appeal and collateral-review deadlines independently.