USA v. Nicole Schuster

Circuit 3Jan 14, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 57/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Vacated

The Third Circuit vacated Nicole K. Schuster’s conviction for violating the Procurement Integrity Act, holding that the district court plainly erred by accepting her guilty plea without a sufficient factual basis. Interpreting 41 U.S.C. § 2102(a), the court ruled that disclosing bid information from a past procurement violates the statute only if the information is the same in substance as information submitted in a pending procurement, a showing not made in the plea record.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

What is required to show that a Rule 11(b)(3) error affected a defendant’s substantial rights on plain-error review when the factual basis for a guilty plea is challenged?

Circuit Positions

Circuit 2Circuit 3(this circuit)Circuit 5Circuit 9

Apply Dominguez Benitez ‘reasonable-probability’ test—defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, she would not have pled guilty.

Circuit 10

Defendant satisfies substantial-rights prong if the record as a whole lacks a sufficient factual basis for the plea (no need to show different plea decision).

Conflict Summary

Most circuits require the defendant to show a ‘reasonable probability’ that, but for the error, he or she would not have entered the plea (the Dominguez Benitez standard). The Tenth Circuit instead holds that the defendant need only show that the record as a whole fails to supply a sufficient factual basis for the plea, without proving a likelihood of a different plea decision.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Nicole K. Schuster
Appellee:United States of America

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Brett G. Sweitzer)
Appellee:Office of United States Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Louis D. Lappen; David Metcalf; Robert A. Zauzmer)