United States v. Under Seal
688 F. App'x 197
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant (pro se) appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and several other postconviction motions challenging his conviction and sentence.
- The district court denied § 2255 relief on the merits and also denied motions for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, a Franks hearing, and a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
- The appellate court reviewed the record independently to determine whether a certificate of appealability (COA) was warranted for the § 2255 denial.
- The court concluded the appellant failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and denied a COA, dismissing the appeal as to the § 2255 denial.
- The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the Rule 33 motion, the Franks motion, and the § 3582(c)(2) motion, concluding those motions were not meritorious or were foreclosed by law.
- The court denied in forma pauperis status and multiple ancillary motions (appointment of counsel, transcript at government expense, compelling government brief, remand, leave to file supplements) and dispensed with oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COA should issue for denial of § 2255 motion | Appellant argued his § 2255 claims merited relief and appealability | Government argued appellant failed to make substantial showing of constitutional denial | COA denied; appeal dismissed as to § 2255 denial |
| Whether Rule 33 new-trial motion applies after guilty plea | Appellant sought a new trial under Rule 33 despite guilty plea | Government argued guilty plea waives antecedent nonjurisdictional defects and Rule 33 inapplicable | Denied; guilty-plea waiver bars Rule 33 relief |
| Whether appellant entitled to a Franks hearing | Appellant requested hearing challenging affidavit/statement reliability | Government argued no entitlement given plea and record | Denied; no Franks relief warranted |
| Whether sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) is authorized | Appellant sought reduction based on guideline amendment | Government argued amendment did not lower his applicable guideline range | Denied; no authorized reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for certificate of appealability when district court denies habeas relief)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (clarifies showing required for certificate of appealability)
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea waives antecedent nonjurisdictional defects)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes right to hearing when affidavit contains intentional or reckless falsehoods)
- United States v. Spaulding, 802 F.3d 1110 (10th Cir. 2015) (Rule 33 does not apply to convictions obtained by guilty plea)
- United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2015) (§ 3582(c)(2) reduction requires amendment that lowers the defendant's applicable guideline range)