Delvalle v. United States

Background

Kevin Delvalle, proceeding without a lawyer, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence based on alleged ineffective assistance by his appellate lawyer. Section 2255 allows a federal prisoner to seek relief from a sentence in limited circumstances, including certain constitutional errors.

Delvalle pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of substances containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and 846. His plea agreement stipulated to a Guidelines offense level of 42, a criminal-history category of I, and a sentencing range of 360 to 480 months. It also waived his right to appeal or bring a Section 2255 challenge to any sentence within or below that range. The court sentenced him to 420 months.

On direct appeal, Delvalle argued that his guilty plea was involuntary because he expected a sentence below the Guidelines range. The Second Circuit rejected that argument and affirmed the court’s acceptance of his plea, concluding that the plea proceeding showed he understood that a below-Guidelines sentence was only a possibility, not a promise.

Claims in the Section 2255 motion

Delvalle argued that appellate counsel should have raised three issues:

The government argued that the plea-agreement waiver barred these arguments and that the arguments were meritless in any event.

Court’s analysis

The court first held that the waiver was enforceable. Delvalle’s 420-month sentence was within the stipulated range, and he did not challenge the plea agreement itself as involuntary or improperly obtained. The court therefore held that the waiver barred his Section 2255 motion and the proposed appellate arguments, which did not challenge the voluntariness of his plea.

The court also ruled in the alternative that appellate counsel was not ineffective. Under the standard for ineffective assistance, Delvalle had to show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced him. The court concluded that counsel reasonably declined to raise arguments barred by the plea agreement or lacking legal support.

Regarding the statutes of conviction, the court relied on Delvalle’s guilty plea and sworn statements during the plea proceeding. He admitted agreeing with others to sell 28 grams of crack cocaine and confirmed that he understood the agreement. The court stated that a defendant who voluntarily pleads guilty generally cannot later argue that the statutes underlying the admitted offenses were incorrect. It also noted that Delvalle presented no evidence undermining the factual basis for the conspiracy charge.

Regarding the Guidelines arguments, the court held that the plea agreement’s offense-level stipulation foreclosed a reduction under Guidelines Section 3B1.2, which concerns a defendant’s minor or minimal role in an offense. The court also reasoned that the provision did not apply because Delvalle received a lower offense level by pleading guilty to an offense less serious than the conduct described in the originally charged murder offenses. The court did not find appellate counsel ineffective for declining to raise the proposed Guidelines arguments.

Because the court found no deficient performance, it did not address the separate prejudice requirement. It also found no factual dispute requiring an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

The court DENIED Delvalle’s Section 2255 motion. It ruled that the motion was barred by the plea-agreement waiver and that the ineffective-assistance claims were meritless even apart from the waiver. The court further stated that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion’s caption identifies the civil docket as No. 24 Civ. 9587, while the final order refers once to No. 24 Civ. 9487.