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.

Emmons v. United States

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

August 8, 2019

TAYLOR ASHLEY EMMONS, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN McBRYDE JUDGE.

         Came on for consideration the motion of movant, Taylor Ashley Emmons, under 2 8 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. After having considered the motion, its attachments, the government's response, the reply, and pertinent parts of the record in No. 4:17-CR-158-A, styled "United States of America v. Carly Jean Benningfield, et. al, " the court has concluded that the motion should be denied.

         I. Background

         On September 20, 2017, movant was named, along with others, in a one-count information charging her 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. 90. Movant and her 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. 95. They also signed a waiver of indictment. CR Doc. 91. Under oath, movant stated that no one had made any promise or assurance of any kind to induce her to plead guilty. Further, movant stated her 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 her guilty plea; movant was satisfied with her counsel and had no complaints regarding her 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 and correct.

         The probation officer prepared the PSR, which reflected that movant's base offense level was 24. CR Doc. 120, ¶ 19. Movant received a two-level enhancement for possession of firearms, id. ¶ 20, and a two-level enhancement for maintaining a premises for distributing a controlled substance, id., ¶ 21. She received a two-level and a one-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Id. ¶¶ 27-28. Based on a total offense level of 25 and a criminal history category of IV, movant's guideline imprisonment range was 84 to 105 months. Id. ¶ 86. The government filed objections to the PSR, CR Doc. 126, to which movant responded, CR Doc. 230. The probation officer prepared an addendum to the PSR, accepting the government's objections and recalculating movant's total offense level as 31 and her guideline range as 151 to 188 months. CR Doc. 144. Movant made a response to the addendum. CR Doc. 231. By order signed June 12, 2018, the court noted that the response did not appear to lodge objections to the addendum, but to the extent it might have been intended to include objections, the court tentatively concluded that such objections were without merit. CR Doc. 2 05.

         On June 15, 2018, the court sentenced movant to a term of imprisonment of 188 months. CR Doc. 22 8. On June 19, 2018, movant filed a document titled "Defendant's Waiver of Filing Notice of Appeal." CR Doc. 23 7.

         II. Grounds of the Motion

         Movant urges four grounds in support of her motion, worded as follows:

GROUND ONE: Defendant's attorney advised her that appealing in McBryde's court only results in more time.

Doc.[2] 1 at PagelD[3] 4.

GROUND TWO: Defendant's attorney failed to properly investigate causing errors in her presentence report

Id. at PagelD 5.

GROUND THREE: Defendant's attorney was [sic] ineffective assistance of counsel since he failed to object to 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.