Lesane v. United States

Background

Eric Lesane pleaded guilty in 2012 to being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The indictment’s single count also referred to 18 U.S.C. § 922(k), which concerns firearms with defaced serial numbers. Lesane was sentenced to 94 months in prison and three years of supervised release.

Lesane later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence on specified constitutional or legal grounds. He argued that:

- a government “Pimentel letter” was a plea agreement that the government breached by later advocating different sentencing calculations; - he was effectively sentenced for violating § 922(k), even though he did not admit that he knew the firearm had a defaced serial number; - his guilty plea did not adequately establish the interstate-commerce element of the § 922(g) offense; - the four-level sentencing enhancement for a defaced serial number was improper; - the court improperly counted New York youthful-offender adjudications in calculating his criminal-history score; - his trial and appellate lawyers were constitutionally ineffective; and - the “residual clause” in the Sentencing Guidelines was unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States.

Court’s analysis

Pimentel letter and guilty plea

The court held that the Pimentel letter was not a plea agreement. The letter expressly stated, “This document is not a plea agreement,” reserved the government’s right to change its Guidelines calculation and present relevant sentencing arguments, and stated that it did not bind the court or promise a particular sentence. Lesane also acknowledged during his plea proceeding that the sentencing judge was not bound by the letter’s calculation.

The court further held that Lesane’s plea was voluntary and sufficient. During the plea proceeding, the government described the elements of § 922(g), and Lesane admitted possessing the firearm and having a qualifying prior conviction. The government stated that the firearm was not manufactured in New York and therefore had traveled through interstate commerce. Lesane’s lawyer did not contest that statement, so the court concluded that the government’s proffer adequately established the required commerce connection.

Section 922(k) reference and sentencing enhancement

The court concluded that Lesane pleaded guilty only to violating § 922(g), not § 922(k). The prosecutor did not identify knowledge of a defaced serial number as an element of the offense, and Lesane’s lawyer confirmed that the defaced serial number was not an element of the § 922(g) charge. The references to § 922(k) in the presentence report and judgment were therefore errors.

The court characterized the reference in the judgment as a clerical error that could be corrected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. It held, however, that the error did not affect the sentence because the court had sentenced Lesane based on his guilty plea to § 922(g), not § 922(k).

The court upheld the four-level Guidelines enhancement for possessing a firearm with a defaced serial number. Under the applicable Guidelines provision, the enhancement applied regardless of whether Lesane knew that the firearm’s serial number was defaced.

Criminal history, Johnson, and ineffective assistance

The court held that the two New York youthful-offender adjudications were properly treated as adult convictions for Guidelines purposes. It noted that the court had considered the nature of the proceedings, the felony convictions and sentences, and the fact that Lesane served the sentences in an adult state correctional facility. The court also noted that the Second Circuit had rejected Lesane’s related argument on direct appeal.

The court rejected Lesane’s Johnson argument because the Supreme Court later held in Beckles v. United States that the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a due-process vagueness challenge. The court also stated that the prior robbery convictions qualified as crimes of violence under the Guidelines’ “force clause,” which concerns offenses involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

Because the court found no merit in Lesane’s underlying arguments, it held that he had not shown constitutionally ineffective assistance by his trial or appellate lawyers.

Disposition

The court granted Lesane’s § 2255 petition to the extent that an amended judgment must be filed removing every reference to 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). The petition was otherwise denied. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, directed that the order be mailed to Lesane, and closed the case.