United States v. Justin Deshun Stiger

── United States v. Justin Deshun Stiger ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: June 02, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0249n.06 No. 25-5684 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Jun 02, 2026 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE Plaintiff–Appellee, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN v. ) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE ) JUSTIN DESHUN STIGER, ) Defendant–Appellant. ) OPINION ) Before: COLE, STRANCH, and BUSH, Circuit Judges. JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. After Justin Stiger pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, the district court sentenced him to 120 months in prison. On appeal, Stiger contends that the district court erred when it accepted his guilty plea, denied his motion to withdraw his plea, and sentenced him to 120 months in prison. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. I. In April 2022, a confidential informant told the Memphis Police Department (MPD) that Cesar Alberto Santana-Monarrez and Gilbert Anthony Rodriguez were storing fentanyl and cocaine at the La Quinta Inn & Suites in Memphis. After searching the suspects’ hotel room, detectives found large quantities of those drugs and arrested both men. During a subsequent investigation conducted by the Drug Enforcement Agency, another informant told detectives that Stiger and Santana-Monarrez sold drugs, distributing from the La Quinta Inn & Suites. Although Stiger lived in Arizona, he would routinely visit Memphis to help No. 25-5684, United States v. Stiger conduct the transactions. And just two months after the hotel search in Memphis, police officers in Arizona arrested Stiger after finding cocaine, fentanyl, and methamphetamine in his vehicle. A grand jury indicted Stiger of conspiracy to possess cocaine and fentanyl with intent to distribute (counts 1 and 2) and aiding and abetting the same crime (counts 3 and 4). After a trial, a jury found Stiger not guilty of the aiding and abetting counts, but it remained deadlocked on the conspiracy counts. So the court set a new trial date for the conspiracy counts. Before the second trial commenced, Stiger pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in exchange for dismissal of the remaining conspiracy count and a joint recommendation of a 60-month prison sentence. If Stiger breached, by his “attempt[] to withdraw his plea,” then the agreement would release the government from its duties, and it would be able to “argue for any sentence within statutory limits.” R. 174, Plea Agreement, PageID 446. Stiger, however, would remain bound to his guilty plea in the event of his breach. Stiger also waived his right to appeal unless his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum or the Guidelines range established by the district court at sentencing. The district court accepted Stiger’s guilty plea at a change-of-plea hearing. At that hearing, Stiger acknowledged that he understood the “nature and meaning of the charge” to which he was pleading guilty, including “the elements” of the offense. R. 196, Change of Plea Hr’g Tr., PageID 620–21. The government then recited its proof to establish the factual basis for Stiger’s guilty ple