Looman v. United States
3:15-cv-00679
N.D. Tex.Oct 12, 2017Background
- Petitioner James H. Looman III filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion seeking vacatur or correction of his federal sentence, challenging application of a Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).
- Magistrate Judge Ramirez issued a Report recommending denial of the § 2255 motion and dismissal with prejudice; Looman filed objections.
- Looman clarified he was not pursuing a Johnson or Beckles due-process/void-for-vagueness claim; instead he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC): counsel failed to force the Government to prove the predicate offense(s) were not crimes of violence at sentencing.
- Looman also argued alternatively that counsel failed to pursue plea negotiations reflected in counsel’s notes, which might have produced a lower Guidelines range or corrected application of the law.
- The Report rejected substantive challenges that prior convictions were not crimes of violence as not cognizable on § 2255, and found Looman’s IAC claims conclusory/speculative.
- The district court conducted de novo review of the objections, adopted the Report, denied the § 2255 motion, dismissed the action with prejudice, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognizability of claim that prior convictions were not crimes of violence | Looman: his predicates did not meet the applicable definition, so enhancement was improper | Government/Report: such collateral attacks on predicate convictions are not cognizable on § 2255 | Court: claim not cognizable under § 2255 (citing Faubion) |
| IAC: failure to challenge Government’s burden at sentencing on predicate status | Looman: counsel failed to put Government to its burden, which resulted in higher advisory Guidelines range | Government/Report: claim is conclusory; Looman fails to show prejudice or a viable collateral pathway | Court: overruled objection; IAC claim fails for reasons in Report; motion denied |
| IAC: failure to pursue plea negotiations | Looman: counsel’s notes indicate plea negotiations that, if pursued, might have led to correct law or lower sentence | Government/Report: speculative and conclusory; no showing of reasonable probability of a different outcome | Court: objection rejected; claim fails as speculative; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Faubion, 19 F.3d 226 (5th Cir.) (collateral attack on prior convictions not cognizable in § 2255)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for issuing certificate of appealability)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (discussed by petitioner but not pressed here)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (discussed by petitioner but not relied on)