United States v. Moore
881 F. Supp. 2d 125
D.D.C.2012Background
- Moore pled guilty to Count 5 and was treated as a career offender with a total offense level of 34 and criminal history category VI, resulting in a guideline range of 262–327 months.
- PSR added 267.3 grams of crack and a firearm; four other counts were dismissed as part of a plea agreement.
- Moore was sentenced in 2002 to 262 months; he later alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and a failure to appeal.
- Moore claims counsel encouraged a guilty plea despite exculpatory facts and mischaracterized evidence.
- Moore alleges the sentencing court misperceived its discretion to depart from the career-offender calculation and challenges Booker-based enforceability.
- The government consented to a hearing on whether Moore’s counsel failed to file an appeal but opposed relief on the other § 2255 grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel failed to file a timely appeal | Moore asked for an appeal; mother also pressed the request | Spencer denies being asked to appeal and states no further contact occurred | Entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the appeal-forfeiture issue |
| Whether the court erred by not recognizing a potential §4A1.3 departure | Court could depart due to overrepresentation of criminal history | Plea agreement barred downward departures; court was bound by guideline range | Moore entitled to resentencing; court misperceived its sentencing discretion and may depart under §4A1.3 on remand |
| Whether the government’s handling of §5K1.1 cooperation was improper | Government acted in bad faith or breached the plea agreement | Decision to file/not file a §5K1.1 motion is discretionary; no bad faith shown | No relief on bad-faith/contractual grounds; however, this is subsumed by other resentencing considerations |
| Whether Booker applies retroactively to Moore on collateral review | Booker renders guideline enhancements advisory | Booker not retroactive; still entitled to resentencing under current law | Booker not retroactive; advisory guidelines apply at resentencing under current law |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (plea-based prejudice standard in guilty plea cases)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (duty to file or discuss appeals when requested by client)
- Taylor v. United States (D.C. Cir.), 139 F.3d 924 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (plea adequacy and counsel’s conduct judged under Strickland during plea negotiations)
- Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1999) (recognizes the right to appeal regardless of merit in some contexts)
- United States v. Jones, 58 F.3d 688 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (government’s obligation to file a substantial-assistance motion when warranted by agreement)
- United States v. Glover, 153 F.3d 749 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (entrapment/role of predisposition in § 4B1.1 analysis)
- Beckham v. United States, 968 F.2d 47 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (court may depart where criminal history over-represents the seriousness of history)