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