United States v. Luker
6:24-cr-10027
| D. Kan. | Aug 22, 2025Background
- Timothy D. Luker pled guilty to distributing child pornography, agreeing to a plea deal that included a waiver of his rights to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction or sentence (with limited exceptions under law).
- The plea agreement included both substantial financial penalties and registration as a sex offender, alongside a prison sentence within the sentencing guidelines.
- Luker’s counsel did not object to the presentence report or the guideline calculations at sentencing, and Luker himself confirmed understanding the terms of the plea at his hearing.
- Luker filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to jurisdiction, constitutionality of statutes, restitution/fees, and SORNA registration.
- The government opposed the motion, relying on the plea agreement’s waiver of collateral attack rights.
- The court addressed whether the waiver precluded Luker's §2255 claims and whether any 'plea validity' exception applied under prevailing 10th Circuit case law.
Issues
| Issue | Luker’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdictional challenge to the federal prosecution | Jurisdiction lacking due to intrastate conduct | Jurisdiction proper under statutes/plea waiver | Waiver bars collateral attack; challenge rejected |
| Constitutionality of child pornography statutes | Statutes are unconstitutional | Laws valid, plus waiver bars attack | Challenge barred by waiver |
| Restitution and assessment fees constitutionality | Fees/restitution unconstitutional | Statutorily authorized, plus waiver | Challenge barred by waiver |
| SORNA registration legality | SORNA registration is unlawful/illegal sanction | Required by statute and plea agreement | Challenge barred by waiver |
| Ineffective assistance claim (general) | Counsel failed to make required objections | No deficiency, but regardless, claim barred by waiver | Waiver enforceable; no plea validity challenge raised |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (voluntary and intelligent guilty pleas not subject to collateral attack)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se litigants receive less stringent pleading standards)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally but courts do not act as pro se litigant’s advocate)