Allah v. United States

Background

Mondu Allah filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the procedure for asking a federal court to set aside or correct a federal sentence. He argued that the court improperly calculated his criminal-history category under the Sentencing Guidelines and that his appellate lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge that calculation.

In his reply, Allah also argued that trial counsel gave ineffective advice by telling him he could not plead guilty to Count One while going to trial on the other charge. The opinion states that Allah pleaded guilty only to Count One, which charged conspiracy, and that Count Two, involving use and carrying of a firearm during and in relation to Count One, was dismissed at sentencing.

Waiver

Judge Seibel first concluded that Allah’s plea agreement barred him from challenging, including through a § 2255 petition, any sentence within or below the stipulated Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months. Allah received a 168-month sentence. The court found no allegation or indication that circumstances justified refusing to enforce the waiver. It therefore concluded that the petition must be dismissed.

Merits

The court alternatively addressed the substance of the petition. It held that claims asserting a nonconstitutional or nonjurisdictional Sentencing Guidelines error generally cannot be raised through a § 2255 petition when the defendant did not raise the issue on direct appeal, absent a complete miscarriage of justice.

The court also found that Allah’s specific criminal-history argument was incorrect. Allah contended that three convictions did not qualify as controlled-substance offenses for career-offender or related enhancement purposes. But the court stated that Allah was not sentenced as a career offender, and that the definition of “controlled substance offense” did not affect his sentence. The convictions instead produced criminal-history points based on the length of the sentences under Guidelines §§ 4A1.1 and 4A1.2. The court stated that this calculation was correct and noted that it had found 13 criminal-history points, not the 15 points Allah asserted.

Because the calculation was correct, the court held that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge it. The court reasoned that counsel could not be at fault for omitting a meritless argument and that Allah could not show prejudice. It further stated that raising the objection would have violated the plea agreement and risked the benefits Allah received under that agreement.

The court rejected the additional ineffective-assistance claim concerning the plea advice as nonsensical because Allah pleaded only to Count One and Count Two was dismissed at sentencing. The court also stated that it could disregard this claim because Allah raised it only in his reply.

Disposition

The court ordered that the petition be dismissed and, in the alternative, denied. It directed the Clerk to terminate the relevant filing in the criminal case and close the civil case. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The opinion does not specify that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.