United States v. Gambrel, 1:09-cr-00003

Petitioner Gambrel, an inmate, from FCI Butner Low, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence.
He pleaded guilty to Count Two (receipt of child pornography) pursuant to a plea agreement that waived direct and collateral post-conviction challenges, subject to limited exceptions.
Judge Hall conducted a Rule 11 colloquy confirming competency, explained rights waived, and ensured understanding of penalties and the advisory nature of the Guidelines.
The presentence investigation report applied an offense level of 40 and a criminal history category I, yielding a Guideline sentence above the statutory maximum; the court imposed the statutory maximum of 240 months, plus other penalties.
Petitioner appealed; the Eleventh Circuit denied relief, noting counsels’ Anders briefing and finding no meritorious issues.
Gambrel subsequently filed a § 2255 motion, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel and other plea-related challenges, which Respondent moved to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of collateral attack waiver	Waiver was not knowing/voluntary and should not bar review.	Waiver is valid; petitioner affirmatively acknowledged understanding during plea colloquy.	Waiver valid; collateral attack claims barred except where exceptions apply.
Ineffective assistance before plea survives waiver	Counsel was ineffective for pre-plea conduct and assurance that affected plea.	Waiver does not bar all ineffective-assistance claims; some relate to plea validity.	Grounds challenging plea validity and pre-plea counsel are not barred; still fail on merits.
Knowingly and voluntarily entering guilty plea	Rule 11 colloquy failed to ensure understanding of charge and consequences; misled by counsel.	Extensive, thorough Rule 11 colloquy showed understanding and voluntariness.	Guilty plea was knowing and voluntary; record supports entry.
Ineffective assistance at sentencing	Counsel failed to investigate enhancements and misadvised on sentencing exposure.	Court properly advised on penalties and enhancements; counsel’s advice not prejudicial.	No ineffective assistance at sentencing; no prejudice established.
Claim of counsel abandonment on appeal	Counsel abandoned him on direct appeal.	Counsel filed Anders brief; appellate counsel provided meaningful representation.	Ground Four denied on merits; no abandonment shown.

United States v. Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2001) (waiver validity requires knowing and voluntary understanding)
United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1993) (waiver of collateral review and direct appeal enforceability)
Williams v. United States, 396 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2005) (distinction between plea-related and sentencing/waiver issues)
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005) (core plea questions: coercion, understanding, consequences)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for guilty pleas in Strickland framework)
United States v. Brown, 117 F.3d 471 (11th Cir. 1997) (real notice of true charge required for voluntary plea)
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (solemn declarations in court carry a presumption of verity)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (ineffective assistance affecting appeal rights evaluation)