Ndukwe v. United States

Background

Patrick Ndukwe filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence imposed unlawfully. He filed the petition without a lawyer. Ndukwe had pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit health-care and honest-services wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349.

The indictment alleged that Ndukwe participated in a scheme to defraud Medicaid and bribe contractors working for New York State. During his guilty-plea hearing, Ndukwe admitted that his transportation company submitted claims for Medicaid rides that did not occur and that he paid an individual to steer additional rides to his company. The court found that his plea was knowing and voluntary.

The plea agreement stipulated to a loss amount of at least $3.5 million and a Sentencing Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months. It also included a waiver of Ndukwe’s right to appeal or bring a later challenge to his sentence under § 2255 if he received no more than 63 months. The court sentenced him to 60 months in prison, ordered more than $2.5 million in restitution, and ordered more than $3.7 million in forfeiture. Ndukwe did not appeal.

Claims and analysis

Ndukwe listed 21 grounds for relief. The court said most were short phrases followed by boilerplate language and addressed only the claims for which he provided factual descriptions or arguments. It grouped his developed claims into four categories: insufficient time to prepare, failure to satisfy the elements of the offense, sentencing errors, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court held that the first three categories were procedurally barred because Ndukwe could have raised them on direct appeal but did not. A procedural bar generally prevents a prisoner from raising on collateral review a claim that could have been raised on appeal, unless the prisoner shows a legally recognized reason for the failure and actual harm, or proves actual innocence. The court found that Ndukwe showed neither. It also held that the plea agreement’s waiver was enforceable because the plea record showed that Ndukwe entered the agreement knowingly and voluntarily.

The court separately considered the merits of the barred claims. It rejected Ndukwe’s argument that he lacked enough preparation time because more than a year separated the indictment and the scheduled trial date, and because Ndukwe stated during his plea hearing that he had enough opportunity to discuss the case with counsel and was satisfied with counsel’s representation.

The court found that the plea had a sufficient factual basis. Ndukwe’s admissions and the Government’s description of its trial evidence supported a finding that he conspired to use interstate communications to defraud New York State’s Medicaid program of money. The court also stated that an indictment charging a conspiracy under § 1349 did not need to list specific acts carried out to further the conspiracy. It rejected Ndukwe’s reliance on Ciminelli v. United States because Ndukwe pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud Medicaid of money, rather than to depriving a victim of valuable economic information.

The court rejected Ndukwe’s sentencing challenges. It relied on the loss amount to which the parties stipulated in the plea agreement and on the presentence report’s agreement with that calculation. The court also found no unwarranted sentencing disparity because one co-defendant cooperated with the Government and the other played a lesser role.

For ineffective assistance of counsel, Ndukwe had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the deficiency likely affected the result. He argued that counsel stipulated to the loss amount and forfeiture without his consent, made the wrong or requested arguments, and failed to preserve challenges to his 60-month sentence. The court found that he did not establish deficient performance or prejudice. It emphasized his statements during the plea hearing that he understood and knowingly entered the agreement, his failure to complain about counsel at sentencing, and the lack of specific facts supporting his allegations. The court also noted that counsel had requested a time-served sentence and submitted a detailed sentencing memorandum, and that the 60-month sentence was within the stipulated Guidelines range.

Disposition

The court denied Ndukwe’s June 30, 2024 petition. It did not grant a certificate of appealability because Ndukwe had not made a substantial showing that a federal right was denied. The court also stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.