Agramonte-Minaya v. United States

Background

Nelson Agramonte-Minaya filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to seek correction or vacatur of a conviction or sentence on specified legal grounds. He proceeded without a lawyer. He had pleaded guilty to a lesser-included offense involving a conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine. The court imposed a principal sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment.

The written plea agreement used an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 210 to 262 months. That range included a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), which applies when a defendant maintains a place for manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. The Second Circuit later dismissed the appeal as to portions covered by a valid appeal waiver and affirmed the remaining parts of the judgment.

Claims and legal standard

Agramonte-Minaya claimed that his trial lawyer, Anthony Cecutti, provided ineffective assistance in three ways: by advising him to accept the premises enhancement without adequate investigation; by failing to explain the plea agreement’s appellate waiver; and by failing to obtain a better plea agreement or adequately advise him about going to trial.

The court applied the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington. Under that test, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the deficient performance caused prejudice. In the guilty-plea context, prejudice generally requires a reasonable probability that, without counsel’s error, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty, would have insisted on trial, or would have obtained a more favorable plea outcome.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the challenge to the premises enhancement. It relied on facts in the presentence report that Agramonte-Minaya had accepted as accurate, including that he was residing in a New Jersey apartment, had coordinated delivery of cocaine-filled metal cylinders there, had prepared the apartment with covered furniture and boarded windows, and had obtained power tools to open the cylinders. The court found that these facts supported the conclusion that he controlled access to and activities at the apartment and maintained it for the purpose of handling cocaine. The court also relied on counsel’s affidavit describing his investigation and Agramonte-Minaya’s admissions about the planned use of the apartment.

The court further found that counsel had explained the Guidelines calculations, including the enhancement, when reviewing the plea agreement. It rejected Agramonte-Minaya’s argument that the enhancement should not apply because his primary residence was in Puerto Rico, explaining that the guideline does not require the premises to be a defendant’s primary residence.

The court rejected the appeal-waiver claim because counsel stated that he had reviewed the waiver with Agramonte-Minaya, and because Agramonte-Minaya confirmed during the plea hearing that the agreement had been translated and discussed with him and that he understood the waiver. The Government and the court also specifically described the waiver’s effect during the plea proceeding.

The court also rejected the claim that competent advice could have produced a better plea agreement or a favorable trial result. It found the proposed alternatives speculative and noted that counsel had negotiated a plea to an offense with a five-year mandatory minimum rather than the ten-year mandatory minimum applicable to the offense charged in the indictment. The court concluded that the plea agreement made possible the 108-month sentence, which was below the applicable Guidelines range and below the sentence recommendations described in the opinion.

Hearing and disposition

The court determined that the motion, case records, plea-hearing statements, and counsel’s affidavit conclusively showed that Agramonte-Minaya was not entitled to relief. Because his allegations were conclusory, contradicted by the record, or legally insufficient even if proved, the court found that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Agramonte-Minaya’s § 2255 motion as meritless. The court found that he had not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, stated that appellate review was not warranted, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied permission to proceed without paying appeal fees for purposes of an appeal, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.