Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sweatt v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

November 28, 2017

RONALD SWEATT, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent,

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN MCBRYDE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Came on for consideration the motion of Ronald Sweatt ("movant") under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. After having considered such motion, its supporting amended memorandum, the government's response, the appendix in support, and pertinent parts of the record in Case No. 4:16-CR-074-A, styled "United States of America v. Ronald Sweatt, " the court has concluded that the motion should be denied.

         I.

         Background

         Information contained in the record of the underlying criminal case discloses the following:

         On April 5, 2016, movant was named in a one-count indictment charging him with production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(c) and 2251(e). CR Doc.[1] 14. On May 13, 2016, movant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of the j indictment. CR Doc. 21, 46. Under oath, movant stated that no one [ had made any promise or assurance of any kind to induce him to plead guilty. Further, movant stated his understanding that the j f. guideline range was advisory and was one of many sentencing | factors the court could consider; that the guideline range could \ not be calculated until the PSR was prepared; the court could j impose a sentence more severe that the sentence recommended by the advisory guidelines and movant would be bound by his guilty plea; movant was satisfied with his counsel and had no complaints j regarding his representation; and, movant and counsel had j reviewed the factual resume and movant understood the meaning of ¶¶ everything in it and the stipulated facts were true. CR Doc. 46.

         On October 7, 2016, movant appeared for sentencing and was j sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 360 months, to be followed by an eight-year term of supervised release. CR Doc. 41, 43, 47. Movant did not appeal.

         II.

         Grounds of the Motion

         Movant asserts four grounds in support of his motion:

         First, he says that there was prosecutorial misconduct. As supporting facts, he alleges that the "United States Attorney suborned perjury by allowing witness(es) at sentencing to give false testimony/statements" and that the U.S. Attorney "made false statements stating 'high risk of recidivism' based on facts or evaluation. No evaluation was ever performed." Doc.[2] 1 at typewritten page 5.[3]

         Second, movant alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. As supporting facts, he says that his court-appointed attorney suggested he not seek or pursue a psycho-sexual evaluation; did not apprise him of his right to review the evidence against him; and did not strenuously object to incorrect/false information in his presentence investigation report ("PSR"). Doc. 1 at typewritten page 6.

         Third, movant alleges that the court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction, because the crime of his conviction was committed in another country. Doc. 1 at typewritten page 7.

         And, fourth, movant alleges that there was judicial misconduct, because the court relied upon incorrect/false information when sentencing and allowed the prosecutor to give and allow false testimony. He says the "Order of the Court makes/contains false statements not supported by evidence or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.