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.

Taber v. United States

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

October 8, 2019

VICTOR ALEX TABER, JR., Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN MCBRYDE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Came on for consideration the motion of Victor Alex Taber, Jr., movant, under 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. After having considered the motion, the government's response, and pertinent parts of the record in Case 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 dismissed.

         In reply to the government's response, movant has filed a motion to withdraw his motion without prejudice. He does not cite any authority in support of the motion and the court is aware of none. The court is not persuaded that a movant can wait until it becomes evident that his motion will be denied on the merits or dismissed before seeking leave to withdraw it. See Felder v. McVicar, 113 F.3d 696, 698 (7th Cir. 1997). Cf . Kramer v. Butler, 845 F.2d 1291, 1294-95 (5th Cir. 1988).

         I.

         Background

         Information contained in the record of the underlying criminal case discloses the following:

         On September 20, 2017, movant was named in a one-count information charging him and others 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] 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. 98. 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. 10 0. They also signed a waiver of indictment. CR Doc. 99. 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.

         The probation officer prepared a PSR that indicated that movant's base offense level was 32. CR Doc. 117, ¶ 28. He received a two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm, id. ¶ 29, a two-level enhancement for importation, id. ¶ 30, and a two-level enhancement for maintaining a drug premises, id. ¶ 31. He received a two-level and a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Id. ¶ 37, 38. Based on a total offense level of 3 5 and a criminal history category of VI, movant's guideline range was 292 to 365 months. Id. ¶ 101. Movant filed objections, CR Doc, 195, and the probation officer prepared an addendum to the PSR. CR Doc. 141. Movant again filed objections. CR Doc. 196. The probation officer prepared a second addendum to the PSR. CR Doc. 164.

         On February 2, 2018, movant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 365 months. CR Doc. 173. He appealed, CR Doc. 201, and his sentence was affirmed. United States v. Taber, 764 Fed.Appx. 426 (5th Cir. 2019).

         II.

         Grounds of the Motion

         The court is unable to discern any ground in support of movant's motion. Doc.[2] 1. As best the court can tell, movant contends that his sentence was imposed in violation of the constitution.

         III.

         Standard ...


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.