Wright v. United States

Background

Marquis Wright filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence or conviction. The court identified the petition as pro se, meaning Wright represented himself. Wright had pleaded guilty in August 2017 to two firearm offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Count One concerned using and discharging a firearm in connection with a murder committed in aid of racketeering. Count Two concerned using and discharging firearms in connection with a racketeering conspiracy and a narcotics conspiracy.

The offenses carried mandatory minimum sentences of 10 years and 25 years, which had to run consecutively. Under the plea agreement, the government agreed to seek dismissal of two pending murder charges that each carried a mandatory life sentence. On April 24, 2018, the court imposed a 35-year sentence.

Arguments and analysis

Wright first argued that the First Step Act of 2018 made his sentence unlawful. The court held that the Act was enacted after Wright was sentenced and was not retroactive to offenses that were final when the Act took effect. The court also stated that, even if the Act allowed a lower sentence, it would have imposed the same sentence based on the statutory sentencing factors.

Wright next relied on decisions holding unconstitutional a vague definition of “crime of violence” in a firearms statute. The court agreed that a racketeering conspiracy is not inherently a crime of violence under that definition, but rejected Wright’s challenge to Count Two because the firearm charge was also tied to a narcotics conspiracy. The court explained that the firearm statute separately covers possession of a firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking crime, and that basis was unaffected by those decisions. The court also found that Wright had clearly admitted during his guilty-plea proceeding that he used a firearm in connection with the narcotics conspiracy.

The court rejected Wright’s challenge to his criminal-history calculation because he received the minimum sentences required by the two statutes, so a different criminal-history calculation could not have produced a lower sentence. It called his argument about receiving a higher sentence than co-defendants frivolous and stated that his sentence was justified by his participation in two murders and his leadership role in the gang. The court also noted that another gang leader received effectively the same sentence.

The court rejected Wright’s claim that his lawyer was ineffective for failing to challenge government wiretaps. Wright did not identify how the wiretaps were legally defective or explain why they supplied important evidence against him. The court stated that the offenses to which Wright pleaded guilty did not primarily depend on wiretap evidence. Finally, the court rejected Wright’s argument concerning drug quantities, stating that his sentence resulted from a plea to two firearm counts and had nothing to do with drug weight. The court added that, when drug quantity is relevant, a defendant may be held responsible for reasonably foreseeable quantities distributed by a conspiracy in which the defendant participated, even without personal possession.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Wright’s § 2255 petition. After reviewing the broader record, including the plea and sentencing proceedings, the court found no defect in the proceedings and no deficiency, much less a prejudicial one, in counsel’s representation. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and close the case. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied permission to proceed without paying court fees for purposes of an appeal.