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.

White v. United States

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

December 26, 2019

RYAN CRAIG WHITE, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN MCBRYDE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Came on for consideration the motion of Ryan Craig White, movant, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. The court, having considered the motion, the government's response, the record in the underlying criminal case, No. 4:18-CR-187-A, styled "United States v. Ryan Craig White, et al.," and applicable authorities, finds that the motion should be denied.

         I.

         Background

         The record in the underlying criminal case reflects the following:

         On August 7, 2018, movant was named, along with another, in a one-count indictment charging him with possession of stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. CR Doc.[1] 17. On September 19, 2018, 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. 26, 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. 28. 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 "absolutely" 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. 70.

         The probation officer prepared the PSR, which reflected that movant's base offense level was 6. CR Doc. 3 5 ¶ 18. He received a two-level increase for loss exceeding $6, 500, id. ¶ 19, a two- level increase for an offense involving ten or more victims, id. ¶ 20, and a two-level increase for an offense that involved an authentication feature. Id. ¶ 21. He received a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Id. ¶ 27. Based on a total offense level of 10 and a criminal history category of VI, movant's guideline imprisonment range was 24 to 30 months. Id. ¶ 91. Movant filed objections. CR Doc. 42. The probation officer prepared an addendum to the PSR to reflect further information gained about movant's history. CR Doc. 40. He filed a second addendum to address movant's objections. CR Doc. 46.

         On January 4, 2019, movant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 60 months. CR Doc. 60. He did not appeal.

         II.

         Grounds of the Motion

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

Ground One: DENIAL OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. Doc.[2] 1 at 7.
Ground Two: DENIAL OF RIGHT TO ...

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.