United States v. Roberts
268 F. Supp. 3d 105
D.D.C.2017Background
- Lamont Roberts pleaded guilty to one count of distributing cocaine base (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(iii)) after undercover purchases totaling ~548.3 grams; plea acknowledged a five-year mandatory minimum.
- Plea agreement estimated his advisory Guidelines range as 87–108 months, stipulated offense level of at least 27, and waived collateral challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 except for newly discovered evidence or ineffective assistance claims.
- The Court accepted the plea; at sentencing the PSR calculated total offense level 27 and Criminal History Category III (Guidelines 87–108); the Court varied downward and imposed 72 months (below the estimated range) and 48 months supervised release.
- Roberts did not file a direct appeal and later filed a § 2255 motion challenging the Guidelines calculation and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to argue reasonableness, failure to seek disparity relief, failure to advise of appeal rights).
- The government opposed; the Court reviewed the record and denied the § 2255 motion without a hearing, finding the Guidelines challenge barred by the plea waiver and that Roberts failed to show Strickland prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberts) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court miscalculated the Sentencing Guidelines | Roberts: two‑level enhancement improperly applied; actual base level should be 24 (Guidelines 51–63 mo) | Plea and PSR: parties stipulated to offense level ≥27 based on admitted quantity; no objection to PSR calculation | Denied — claim barred by plea waiver and record shows proper calculation; sentence was below estimated range |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not arguing sentence reasonableness | Roberts: counsel failed to fight for a reasonable sentence at sentencing | Court: counsel filed sentencing memorandum seeking 60 months; Court varied downward to 72 months | Denied — no prejudice shown; counsel advocated for lower sentence and Court granted a beneficial variance |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to argue unwarranted disparity with co‑defendant | Roberts: counsel did not argue sentencing disparity vis‑à‑vis co‑defendant Johnson | Court: co‑defendants not similarly situated (different conduct, quantities, statutory exposure, criminal histories) | Denied — not prejudicial; disparity argument unwarranted given factual differences |
| Whether counsel failed to advise Roberts of right to appeal | Roberts: counsel never told him about direct appeal rights | Plea agreement waived appellate rights; judge advised Roberts at plea and sentencing about appeal limits and deadlines | Denied — no prejudice because Roberts waived appeal rights and any appeal would have been frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Plea bargains are contractual and enforced when knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (Higher hurdle for collateral attack than direct appeal)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (Deference to counsel performance; prejudice requirement)
- United States v. Adams, 780 F.3d 1182 (Enforcement of appellate/ collateral waivers when knowing and voluntary)