UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DEMETRIUS N. PITTS - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DEMETRIUS N. PITTS

Posted by: Karen Belcher on May 14, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Steven R. Jaeger, THE JAEGER FIRM PLLC, Erlanger, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Matthew B. Kall, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): STRANCH, LARSEN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. The government charged Defendant Demetrius Pitts with serious offenses including planning terrorist attacks against his fellow Americans and threatening the President. The parties ultimately agreed to resolve this case with a plea agreement that carried a 168-month sentence, which was substantially below what the sentencing Guidelines recommended. Pitts now challenges that resolution.

The FBI began monitoring Pitts after he made social media posts encouraging Muslims to pursue military training. Eventually, Pitts expressed a desire to meet with an al-Qaeda operative, and the FBI deployed an undercover agent (“UA”) to play this role. The two planned a bombing in downtown Cleveland, and the FBI arrested Pitts after he pitched follow-up attacks in Philadelphia and San Francisco.

Ultimately, the government charged Pitts with attempting to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization (“FTO”), threatening the President, threatening the President’s immediate family, and making false statements to law enforcement. Pitts pleaded guilty to the first three charges, and the government dismissed the fourth. He now complains that the district court improperly accepted his plea because there was no factual basis for it in the record, because he was not competent to enter it, and because he did not understand its terms. Because we find these arguments meritless, we don’t address the sentencing arguments barred by the appellate waiver in Pitts’s valid plea agreement, and we AFFIRM the district court.

 

Attachments: