Roman v. United States
- Lucy Koh
- 5:18-cv-02501
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 10
Roman v. United States: Judge Koh denied Roman’s sentence challenge, enforcing his plea waiver and rejecting his Nelson-based sentencing argument.
Leslie Roman, who was representing himself, was denied a motion challenging his federal sentence. The United States prevailed on the motion.
What happened
In Roman v. United States, Leslie Roman asked the court to cancel or change his federal sentence under a law allowing federal prisoners to challenge their sentences. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nelson v. Colorado and argued that his sentence improperly used other conduct to increase the punishment.
The government argued that Roman had given up the right to file this type of challenge in his plea agreement and that Nelson did not apply to sentencing decisions involving other conduct. The court found that Roman knowingly and voluntarily waived this right, except for claims that his lawyer had been ineffective. Roman did not raise such a claim.
Judge Koh denied the motion. She also ruled that, even without the waiver, Nelson did not limit the use of relevant conduct at sentencing and therefore did not support changing Roman’s sentence. The court also denied a certificate allowing an appeal.
The detailed version
- Roman v. United States · No. 5:18-cv-02501
- Lucy Koh
- Sept. 14, 2021
Background
Leslie Roman, acting without a lawyer, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a person in federal custody to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. Roman had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and to introduce misbranded food into interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.
The court sentenced Roman to 32 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and restitution. The prison term was below the federal sentencing-guidelines range of 57 to 71 months.
Roman’s plea agreement stated that he would not file a collateral attack—a later challenge to his conviction or sentence—under § 2255 or other listed provisions, except for a claim that his lawyer had been ineffective. During the plea hearing, Roman confirmed that he understood and accepted that waiver. The court found that his guilty plea and waiver were knowing, intelligent, free, and voluntary.
Arguments
Roman argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Nelson v. Colorado made his sentence unconstitutional because the court had used relevant conduct to increase it. He argued that he should be presumed innocent of the conduct used to enhance his sentence and asked the court either to vacate the sentence or resentence him.
The government argued that Roman’s plea agreement barred the § 2255 motion and that Nelson did not concern the use of relevant conduct at sentencing.
Court’s analysis
The court first ruled that Roman’s release from prison did not make the motion moot because he remained on supervised release, which counted as custody for purposes of § 2255.
The court then enforced the plea-agreement waiver. The waiver’s language covered Roman’s sentence challenge, and Roman did not claim that his lawyer’s ineffective assistance made the waiver involuntary. The court also found that Roman knowingly and voluntarily accepted the waiver during the plea hearing. The court therefore held that Roman had waived his right to bring the motion.
The court separately addressed the merits of Roman’s argument. It explained that Nelson held that Colorado could not require a person whose conviction had been invalidated to prove innocence by clear and convincing evidence to obtain a refund of costs and restitution. According to the court, Nelson did not address relevant conduct, the federal sentencing guidelines, or the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in United States v. Watts. Watts held that a sentencing court may consider relevant acquitted conduct when the government proves that conduct by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that Nelson did not support Roman’s challenge to his sentence.
Disposition
The court DENIED Roman’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. It also ordered that no certificate of appealability issue because Roman had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.