UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 21-3636 │ v. │ │ LEE JONES, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown. No. 4:20-cr-00750-1—Dan A. Polster, District Judge.

Argued: November 1, 2022

Decided and Filed: November 16, 2022

Before: McKEAGUE, THAPAR, and READLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Jack Millman, JONES DAY, New York, New York, for Appellant. Rebecca C. Lutzko, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jack Millman, JONES DAY, New York, New York, for Appellant. Rebecca C. Lutzko, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Lee Jones pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, but the district court did not ensure that his plea was knowing and voluntary. Thus, we vacate Jones’s sentence. No. 21-3636 United States v. Jones Page 2

I.

The police pulled Jones over for a traffic violation. What began as a routine traffic stop soon spiraled out of control. Ignoring the officers’ repeated demands that he step out of the car, Jones rolled up his window, sped off, crashed the car, and then ran until the police arrested him. The police seized an AR-15 and a handgun from the wrecked car. Jones was charged as a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He pled guilty without a plea agreement.

Jones appeals because of how the district court explained the Sentencing Guidelines at the change-of-plea hearing. First, the district court informed Jones of the maximum statutory penalties he faced. Jones immediately claimed he “didn’t understand” because he “thought [his] guideline was something different.” R. 28, Pg. ID 135. But the court hadn’t discussed the Sentencing Guidelines yet, just the statutory maximums. Eventually, the court did reach the Guidelines. The court asked Jones if he had discussed the Guidelines with his lawyer. Jones said he had. The government claimed the Guidelines called for 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment. Jones’s lawyer argued the correct range was 12 to 18 months. The district court said it would have to decide between the parties’ proposals. At the time, no one recognized the problem with this statement. Without a plea agreement that specified the sentencing range, the court was not bound by the parties’ Guidelines calculations. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). But Jones was unaware of that possibility. At the end of the hearing, the court informed Jones that the Probation Office would prepare a presentence investigation report (“PSR”), which the court would “use at sentencing.” R. 28, Pg. ID 146.

When the PSR recommended 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment, Jones was understandably confused. He hadn’t realized the district court could sentence him to more time than the government orig