United States v. Sloan
21-5033
| 10th Cir. | Dec 3, 2021Background
- Sloan pleaded guilty to transporting a minor with intent to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a); he was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment and 10 years supervised release.
- His plea agreement contained a broad collateral-review waiver except for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims; Sloan filed a pro se appeal that was dismissed as untimely.
- Sloan filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising numerous claims; the government argued many claims were waived and that ineffective-assistance claims lacked merit.
- The district court applied United States v. Hahn to hold the collateral-review waiver knowing, voluntary, and enforceable as to most substantive claims, and barred those claims.
- The district court considered the ineffective-assistance claims (outside the waiver) under Strickland and denied relief on the merits, rejecting challenges to § 2423(a)’s vagueness/crime-of-violence theory, counsel’s failure to read supervised-release conditions into the record, sentencing-disparity arguments, failure to file an appeal, and failure-to-withdraw-plea/consult claims.
- Sloan sought a certificate of appealability (COA); the Tenth Circuit independently reviewed the record and denied a COA, concluding reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability and scope of plea collateral-review waiver | Sloan challenged some post-conviction claims on the merits but did not contest waiver enforceability on appeal | Waiver was knowing, voluntary, and bars substantive claims raised in § 2255 except ineffective-assistance claims | Waiver enforceable; most substantive claims barred by the waiver |
| Counsel ineffective for not challenging § 2423(a) as requiring a "crime of violence" or as unconstitutionally vague | Sloan argued counsel should have argued § 2423(a) is not a crime-of-violence or is void for vagueness (citing Davis-style precedents) | § 2423(a) does not require a crime-of-violence element and plainly proscribes transporting a minor with intent for prosecutable sexual activity; Beckles forecloses vagueness challenge to advisory Guidelines | Denied: counsel not deficient for failing to raise those meritless/vacuous arguments |
| Counsel ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal after being asked | Sloan contends he told counsel to appeal; counsel says Sloan declined after informed discussion and was responsive | Counsel averred he advised Sloan and would have filed if Sloan had instructed him or been unresponsive; he also responded to the government re: untimely pro se appeal | Denied: no deficient performance; Roe v. Flores-Ortega standard not met |
| Counsel ineffective re: sentencing procedure, plea consultations, and motion to withdraw plea | Sloan claims counsel failed to (a) have court read supervised-release terms, (b) seek a variance for sentencing disparity, (c) consult on a 24‑month plea offer, (d) move to withdraw plea when requested | Court: no requirement to read mandatory/standard supervised-release terms; plea was within agreed Guidelines; counsel communicated plea offers; Sloan admitted elements at plea colloquy and delayed seeking withdrawal | Denied: counsel acted reasonably; no prejudice shown to satisfy Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (test for enforceability of post-conviction plea waivers)
- United States v. Viera, 674 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2012) (applies Hahn analysis to § 2255 proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (counsel’s duty to file an appeal when requested)
- Davis v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (U.S. 2019) (void-for-vagueness precedents cited by petitioner)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (U.S. 2017) (advisory Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge)
- United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (only discretionary supervised-release conditions must be pronounced at sentencing)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (standard for granting a COA)
- Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2008) (pro se filings construed liberally)
- Christian Heritage Acad. v. Okla. Secondary Sch. Activities Ass'n, 483 F.3d 1025 (10th Cir. 2007) (issues unsupported by argument are waived)