⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Jermaine Bunn appeals a federal firearm conviction. Police found him unconscious in a vehicle containing a gun. Because he had a prior felony conviction, possessing that firearm was prohibited by federal law. A jury found him guilty. The unusual dispute concerns what happened before trial. Bunn repeatedly said he wanted to plead guilty. The judge initially announced that he would adjudge Bunn guilty, then questioned whether Bunn understood and admitted possessing the gun. The judge stopped the hearing for further consultation. At a later hearing, Bunn chose a trial. Bunn argues that his earlier plea had already been accepted and should govern sentencing. The government says his answers showed uncertainty about what he was admitting, so the judge properly gave him more time to consult his lawyer. Rule eleven governs guilty pleas. A plea colloquy is the judge's questioning to check the defendant's understanding, rights and voluntary choice. The rule separately requires a factual basis before judgment. The parties dispute how those requirements apply here. Actual possession means knowing physical control. Constructive possession means knowingly having the right and intention to exercise control, even without holding the item. Being near a gun is not enough. Acceptance of responsibility can lower the sentencing-guideline range, but a guilty plea alone does not guarantee that reduction. Plain-error review concerns obvious errors affecting important rights that were not properly raised below. The Speedy Trial Act generally uses a seventy-day clock, with specified delays excluded. Some exclusions are automatic; an ends-of-justice continuance requires recorded reasons weighing the need for delay against a prompt trial. The parties dispute which rule covers the interrupted plea hearing. Marisa Serrat will seek sentencing based on Bunn's earlier plea. Laura Ford for the United States will defend the conviction and sentence.

United States v. Jermaine Bunn (No. 25-3783) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, argued October 22, 2026.