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.

Gonzalez v. United States

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

August 6, 2019

MANUEL GONZALES, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          John McBryde United States District Judge.

         Came on for consideration the motion of Manuel Gonzales, movant, under 28 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. 4:17-CR-157-A, styled "United States of America v. Cameron Miles Baker, et al.," the court has concluded that the motion should be denied.[1]

         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.[2] 80. On October 3, 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. 94. 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. 96. They also signed a waiver of indictment. CR Doc. 95. 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. 205.

         The probation officer prepared the PSR, which reflected that movant's base offense level was 34. CR Doc. 118, ¶ 27. He received a 2-level increase for possession of a dangerous weapon, id. ¶ 28, a 2-level increase for maintaining a premises for distributing a controlled substance, id. ¶ 29, a 3-level increase for being a manager or supervisor, id. ¶ 31, and a 2-level and a 1-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility, id. ¶¶ 35, 36. Based on his total offense level of 38 and criminal history category of VI, movant's guideline range was 360 months to life. However, the statutorily authorized maximum sentence was 4 0 years, so the guideline range became 360 to 480 months. Id. ¶ 101.

         Movant filed objections to the PSR, to which the government responded. CR Doc. 131. The probation officer prepared an addendum to the PSR rejecting movant's objections. CR Doc. 14 5. Movant again objected and the government filed a response to his objections. CR Doc. 163. The probation officer prepared a second addendum to the PSR, again rejecting movant's objections. CR Doc. 166 .

         On February 2, 2018, movant and his counsel appeared for sentencing. CR Doc. 175. Movant persisted in his objection to the drug quantity attributed to him. CR Doc. 206 at 4. The government presented evidence; movant did not. The court overruled the objection and sentenced movant to a term of imprisonment of 42 0 months. Id.; CR Doc. 178. Movant appealed, CR Doc. 198, and his sentence was affirmed. United States v. Gonzales, 751 Fed.Appx. 586 (5th Cir. 2019).

         II.

         Grounds of the Motion

         Movant asserts two grounds in support of his motion, worded as follows:

GROUND ONE: Mr. Gonzales' Plea was not Knowingly, Intelligently and Voluntarily Entered as a Result of ineffective ...

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.