Mateus v. United States

Background

Eddie Mateus moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea and/or have his conviction or sentence vacated, set aside, or corrected. He had pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute, and possess with intent to distribute, at least one kilogram of heroin and at least 500 grams of cocaine. The court sentenced him principally to 120 months in prison, the statutory mandatory minimum.

Mateus claimed that his attorney, Kyle B. Watters, provided ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that Watters failed to advise him properly about an earlier plea offer, failed to challenge a two-level firearm enhancement, and failed to make a timely motion to dismiss the indictment. Mateus also made a brief reference to counsel’s failure to request a sentencing hearing concerning disputed facts, but the court concluded that this unsupported assertion could not establish ineffective assistance.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel. Mateus had to show both that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the alleged error caused actual prejudice—a reasonable probability that the result would have been different.

Earlier plea offer

For purposes of deciding the motion, the court accepted Mateus’s version of the disputed timeline concerning an earlier, unofficial plea offer. Mateus said the offer would have involved a lesser offense carrying a 60-month mandatory minimum, but that the offer was no longer available when his counsel contacted the Government.

The court found that Watters had discussed the offer, reviewed the evidence and possible sentences with Mateus, and advised him to seriously consider accepting it. Mateus nevertheless chose to proceed to trial because he believed he would be acquitted. The court held that counsel’s failure to pressure Mateus into accepting the offer was not deficient performance; the ultimate decision whether to plead guilty belonged to Mateus.

Firearm enhancement

Mateus argued that counsel should have challenged the two-level firearm enhancement included in the plea agreement and should have argued that the enhancement created an unwarranted sentencing disparity. The court did not decide that claim in Mateus’s favor regarding his alleged lack of knowledge of the firearm. Instead, it held that Mateus could not show prejudice because the offense carried a 120-month mandatory minimum whether or not the enhancement applied, and the court ultimately imposed that mandatory minimum sentence.

The court also noted that Mateus had confirmed during the plea proceeding that he understood the plea agreement, which included the enhancement, and that counsel had stated at sentencing that Mateus was accepting the enhancement because a co-conspirator possessed a firearm.

Untimely motion to dismiss the indictment

Watters filed the motion to dismiss nearly one year after the deadline for notifying the court about contemplated motions and eleven months after the deadline for filing them. The court had denied that motion as untimely and had also stated that it would deny the motion on the merits because the alleged misconduct by a cooperating witness was not sufficiently pervasive or severe to warrant dismissal of the indictment.

The court held that Mateus could not establish ineffective assistance based on the delay. A claim based on counsel’s failure to file a motion requires showing that the underlying motion would have been meritorious and that the proceeding likely would have ended differently. Because the court had already determined that the motion to dismiss would not have succeeded on the merits, Mateus could not show the required prejudice.

Ruling and disposition

The court determined that no evidentiary hearing was warranted. It had reviewed Watters’s sworn affirmations, accepted Mateus’s version of disputed facts where appropriate, and concluded that Mateus had not identified specific facts that, if proved, would entitle him to relief.

The court denied Mateus’s motion under § 2255 and denied his request for an evidentiary hearing. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Mateus had not made a substantial showing that a federal right had been denied. The Clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.