United States v. Smith, 2:13-cr-00201-SSV-DEK

Johnny Smith pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to production (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)) and possession (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)) of child pornography and was adjudged guilty after a rearraignment.
The plea agreement contained a broad waiver of the right to contest plea, conviction, or sentence on direct or collateral review, with limited exceptions for (1) direct appeal if sentence exceeded statutory maximum and (2) post-conviction relief when ineffective assistance directly affected the validity of the waiver or plea.
The court sentenced Smith to 292 months (Count One) and 240 months (Count Two), concurrent; sentence was within the advisory Guideline range and below statutory maximums.
Smith’s direct appeal to the Fifth Circuit was dismissed; he later sought relief under Rule 52(b)/§ 2255 and other post-conviction remedies, all denied.
Smith moved for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), asserting ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and that his waiver of indictment was improperly obtained; the district court found his inmate account balance minimal but concluded his appeal lacks good faith because the claims are frivolous or waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith may proceed IFP on appeal (good-faith requirement)	Smith contends he cannot pay fees and his appeals raise nonfrivolous issues (ineffective assistance; invalid waiver)	Government argues Smith’s appeal is frivolous or waived, so not taken in good faith	Denied: appeal not in good faith because claims lack arguable legal/factual basis
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by coercing plea / failing to advise of appeal waiver	Smith claims counsel threatened him and failed to explain the plea waiver; alleges waiver obtained while on suicide watch and other investigative failures	Government relies on Smith’s sworn statements at rearraignment that he was not coerced, counsel advised him, and he was satisfied	Denied: record contradicts Smith’s allegations; ineffective-assistance claims frivolous or meritless
Whether ineffective-assistance claims survive the plea waiver	Smith argues counsel failures merit review despite waiver	Government argues waiver bars claims unless they directly affect plea or waiver validity	Denied: most ineffective-assistance claims waived because they do not directly attack plea or waiver validity
Whether Smith can challenge validity of waiver of indictment / magistrate’s advisal	Smith argues magistrate failed to advise of rights he forfeited by signing waiver of indictment	Government says claim is waived by plea agreement	Denied: claim waived under plea agreement

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (defines good-faith standard for IFP appeals)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (good-faith requirement for appeals)
United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 1994) (defendant held to plea bargain when record shows understanding of waiver)
United States v. Reed, 719 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 2013) (sworn statements at plea hearing limit later contradictory claims)
United States v. White, 307 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claims survive waiver only when they directly affect plea or waiver validity)
Kingery v. Hale, [citation="73 F. App'x 755"] (5th Cir. 2003) (frivolous complaint lacks arguable basis in law or fact)