United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AMD ORDER
for consideration the motion of Raul Rangel
("movant") under 2 8 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate,
set aside, or correct sentence. After having considered the
motion, its supporting memorandum, the government's
response, the reply,  and pertinent parts of the record in No.
4:16-CR-132-A, styled "United States of America v.
Charles Ben Bounds, et al.," the court has concluded
that the motion should be denied.
contained in the record of the underlying criminal case
discloses the following:
18, 2016, movant was named in a superseding indictment
charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. CR Doc. 215. On June 22,
2016, movant appeared before the court with the intent to
enter a plea of guilty to the offense charged without benefit
of a plea agreement. CR Doc. 312. Movant and his attorney
signed a factual resume setting forth the elements of the
offense, the maximum penalty movant faced, and the stipulated
facts supporting movant's guilt. CR Doc. 313. 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 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 presentence report ("PSR") was
prepared; the court could impose a sentence more severe than
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 regarding
his representation; and, movant and counsel had reviewed the
factual resume and movant understood the meaning of
everything in it and the stipulated facts were true. CR Doc.
probation officer prepared the PSR, which reflected that
movant's base offense level was 38. CR Doc. 70 9, ¶2
8. Movant received two-level increases for possession of a
firearm, id. ¶ 29, and for maintaining a
premises for manufacturing or distributing a controlled
substance, id. ¶ 30. He received a two-level
and a one-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility.
Id., ¶¶ 36, 37. Based on a total offense
level of 39 and a criminal history category of VI,
movant's guideline imprisonment range was 3 60 months to
life. Id. ¶ 118. However, the statutory maximum
sentence was 40 years, so the applicable guideline range
became 3 60 to 480 months. Id.
filed objections to the PSR. CR Doc. 718. The probation
officer prepared an addendum to the PSR, which accepted in
part and rejected in part movant's objections. CR Doc. 8
02. On November 23, 2016, movant appeared for sentencing. CR
Doc. 843. Movant persisted in his objections to the PSR that
the 150 kilograms of methamphetamine attributed to him was
not reasonable. CR Doc. 1283 at 4-5. He presented testimony
in support of the objections and the court determined that
movant should only be held accountable for one 5-gallon
bucket full of methamphetamine instead of 3 0 buckets, i.e.,
5 kilograms instead of 150 kilograms of methamphetamine.
Id. at 17-18. As a result, movant's base offense
level became 34 and his guideline range was 2 92 to 3 65
months. Id. 18-19. The court sentenced movant to a
term of imprisonment of 365 months. CR Doc. 846. Movant
appealed, CR Doc. 8 50, and his sentence was affirmed.
United States v. Range1, 705 Fed.Appx. 277 (5th Cir.
2017). His petition for writ of certiorari was denied.
Rangel v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1338 (2018).
Grounds of the Motion
asserts two grounds in support of his motion, worded as
GROUND ONE: Movant received ineffective
assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to adequately
challenge Michael Hoffman's credibility regarding his
statement to federal authorities about 5-gallon buckets of
methamphetamine allegedly shown to Hoffman by movant.
1 at 4.
GROUND TWO: Movant received ineffective
assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to a
sentencing guidelines 2-point enhancement (§ 2Dl.l(b)
(12)) for maintaining a premises for distributing drugs.
Id. at 5.