Whether an unconditional guilty plea admits surplus factual allegations not essential to proving an offense element, and what standard of appellate review applies to factual-basis challenges

1. What are the admissive effects of a defendant's guilty plea? Specifically, does an unconditional guilty plea admit facts alleged in an indictment or information which are not essential (i.e., "surplus") to proving an element of the charged offense? The Supreme Court's intervention is essential to resolve confusion and conflict as to whether a guilty plea necessarily admits those factual allegations in an indictment which are not elements of the charged offense. Circuit courts have struggled to interpret the Supreme Court's pronouncement in United States v. Broce. Circuit courts are almost evenly divided as to whether a sentencing judge may rely upon a guilty plea to establish nonessential or "surplus" facts alleged in an indictment or information. However, treating guilty pleas as conclusively establishing surplus allegations undermines protections provided to defendants by the Sentencing Guidelines, Rule 11, and the Due Process Clause. Treating guilty pleas as establishing surplus allegations can also result in a defendant being punished more severely for entering a guilty plea than if he had been convicted following trial. This case is an ideal vehicle for the Supreme Court to resolve the circuit split and announce its fulsome rejection of the anachronistic and profoundly unfair rule under which some circuits still construe guilty pleas as admitting surplus allegations. 2. What scope of appellate review is required, and what standard of review is to be applied, in response to a factual-basis challenge to a guilty plea? The Supreme Court's intervention is likewise necessary to avoid confusion and conflict as to whether a conviction obtained through a guilty plea may be challenged for lacking an adequate factual basis and , if so, what is the duty of the reviewing court when presented with such a challenge. Federal circuits are divided as to whether unconditional guilty pleas waive factual basis challenges on appeal. Even among the circuits that allow factual basis challenges there is further disagreement as to what standard of review applies. This case provides a timely opportunity to resolve these circuit splits, particularly in light of the scrutiny to which the Supreme Court has recently subjected the Government's more expansive theories of wire fraud.