Jimenez v. United States

Background

Edward Jimenez, who was representing himself, asked the court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Jimenez was serving a 176-month sentence for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He had pleaded guilty to a lesser included offense of the drug-conspiracy count under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), under a plea agreement that set a Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months. The Government dismissed the firearm count under the agreement.

Jimenez raised three main claims: that counsel incorrectly told him he was pleading under a different subsection of the drug statute; that counsel told him the sentencing range would be 57 to 61 months rather than 168 to 210 months; and that counsel failed to seek suppression of evidence obtained through search warrants based on information from an unreliable confidential informant.

No Evidentiary Hearing

The court ruled that no hearing was required because the written record—including the plea agreement, plea and sentencing transcripts, presentence report, party affidavits, and counsel’s affidavit—was sufficient to decide the motion.

Guilty-Plea Claims

The court rejected Jimenez’s claims concerning his guilty plea. The court found that Jimenez pleaded guilty under § 841(b)(1)(B), not § 841(b)(1)(A), and that his 176-month sentence was within the applicable statutory range. During the plea proceeding, Jimenez confirmed under oath that he had read and discussed the plea agreement with counsel and understood that the agreed Guidelines range was 168 to 210 months, with a 60-month mandatory minimum. He also confirmed that he understood his right to plead not guilty and go to trial and that no one had forced him to plead guilty.

Because these sworn statements showed that Jimenez understood the possible sentence and entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, the court declined to credit his later contradictory statements. The court further held that even if counsel had told Jimenez that the Guidelines range would be 57 to 61 months, Jimenez could not establish the required harm because the magistrate judge had expressly advised him of the 168-to-210-month range before he pleaded guilty.

Suppression Claim

The court also rejected Jimenez’s claim that counsel failed to move to suppress evidence based on information from a confidential informant. Jimenez acknowledged that counsel had filed a suppression motion jointly with counsel for a codefendant. Counsel had also moved to dismiss the indictment on similar grounds.

The court found that Jimenez did not identify what additional evidence counsel would have obtained by confronting the informant or explain how the alleged lack of confrontation harmed him. The court stated that the informant’s statements were corroborated by telephone wiretaps, physical surveillance, and evidence found in Jimenez’s apartment. It therefore concluded that the suppression motion’s outcome would not have changed.

Disposition

The court denied Jimenez’s § 2255 motion. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Jimenez had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Jimenez could not proceed without paying the appeal filing fee. Judge Kimba M. Wood directed the Clerk of Court to close the pending motion and mail Jimenez a copy of the order.