Hughes v. United States

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN McBRYDE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Came on for consideration the motion of David Bradley Hughes, 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, and pertinent parts of the record in No. 4:17-CR-158-A, styled "United States of America v. Carley Jean Benningfield, et al.," 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 September 20, 2017, movant was named, along with others, in a one-count information 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.^[1] 75. On September 26, 2017, 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. 84. 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. 86. They also signed a waiver of indictment. CR Doc, 85. 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.^[2]

         The probation officer prepared the PSR, which indicated that movant's base offense level was 32. CR Doc. 122, ¶23. He received a two-level increase for possession of a firearm, id. ¶ 24, and a two-level increase for maintaining a premises for manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, id. ¶ 25. Based on a total offense level of 36 and a criminal history category of IV, movant's guideline imprisonment range was 2 62 to 327 months. Id. ¶ 81. Movant filed objections. CR Doc. 216. The probation officer prepared an addendum to the PSR, CR Doc, 143, and a second addendum, CR Doc. 154.

         On June 8, 2018, movant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 24 0 months. CR Doc. 2 02. At the sentencing hearing, the court heard testimony in support of the government's 5K1.1 motion and found that movant was eligible for a sentence below the bottom of the advisory guideline range. CR Doc. 263 at 7-13. Movant did not appeal.

         II.

         Grounds of the Motion

         Movant urges two grounds^[3] in support of his motion, worded as follows:

GROUND ONE: Petitioner's lawyer let a 5-year plea expire, and now he is serving a 2 0-year sentence. See memorandum.

Doc.^[4] 1 at PagelD^[5] 4.

GROUND TWO: There were multiple charges and claims, which were false or irrelevant, and the Petitioner's counsel failed to raise the appropriate objections, which resulted in the unjust enhancement of the ...