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.

Jaimes v. United States

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

October 11, 2019

NOE LUJANO JAIMES, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          John McBryde, United States District Judge.

         Came on for consideration the motion of Noe Lujano Jaimes, movant, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. The court, having considered the motion, the memorandum in support (which is attached to the motion and titled "Attachments to Habeas Petition"), the response, and pertinent parts of the record in No. 4:17-CR-223-A, styled "United States of America v. Noe Lujano-Jaimes," has concluded that the motion should be denied.

         I.

         Background

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

         On October 18, 2017, movant was named in a one-count indictment charging him with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b) (1) (C), CR Doc.[1] 8. On December 13, 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. 19. 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. 21. They also signed a consent to administration of guilty plea and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 allocution by the United States Magistrate Judge. CR Doc. 20. 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. On that basis, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plea of guilty be accepted by the undersigned. CR Doc. 22. No. objections were made to the recommendation, which the undersigned accepted. CR Doc. 27.

         The probation officer prepared the PSR, which reflected that movant's base offense level was 38. CR Doc. 35, ¶ 34. He received two-level enhancements for possession of a firearm, importation from Mexico, and maintaining a premises for manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. Id. ¶¶ 35-37. He received a two-level and a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Id. ¶¶ 43-44. Based on his total offense level of 41 and a criminal history category of III, movant's guideline imprisonment range was 360 months to life. However, the statutorily authorized maximum sentence was 12 0 months, so that became the guideline sentence. Id. ¶ 92. Movant submitted objections to the PSR and the probation officer prepared an addendum thereto. CR Doc. 38. The probation officer rejected the objections to the two-level enhancements for importation and maintaining a drug premises as well as the objection as to calculation of the offense level. Id. The addendum corrected the PSR to reflect that the statutory guideline sentence was 240 months. Id. at 3.

         On May 11, 2018, movant appeared for sentencing. He persisted in his objections, which the court overruled. CR Doc. 50. The court noted that even without the increases for importation and drug premises, a sentence above 240 months would have been appropriate, but the court was limited by the statutory maximum of 240 months to which it sentenced movant. Id. at 18-19; CR Doc. 45. Movant filed a notice of appeal, CR Doc. 47, but failed to prosecute it. CR Doc. 48.

         II.

         Grounds of the Motion

         Movant asserts four grounds in support of his motion, all alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. They are worded as follows:

GROUND ONE: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL/FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE

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

GROUND TWO: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL/FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE ...

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.