Sessum v. United States

Background

Maurice Sessum moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure allowing a prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence on specified legal grounds. He had pleaded guilty in November 2016 to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud. The court sentenced him in July 2017 to concurrent terms of 90 months’ imprisonment. The plea agreement included a stipulated Sentencing Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months and waived most rights to appeal or make a later collateral challenge, except claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Sessum was represented by Herbert Greenman during the criminal proceedings. In his later motion, filed while proceeding without a lawyer, Sessum claimed that Greenman failed to investigate the case adequately, failed to negotiate a suitable plea agreement, failed to challenge the government’s description of Sessum as a “debt collector,” and failed to challenge the government’s standing and the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Sessum also challenged the loss amount used in the plea agreement and sentencing.

Legal standard

The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel. Sessum had to show that Greenman’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the alleged errors caused actual prejudice. In the guilty-plea context, prejudice required Sessum to show a reasonable probability that, without his lawyer’s errors, he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial.

The court also considered Sessum’s statements during the plea hearing, where he confirmed that he understood the charges and plea agreement, had discussed the charges and possible defenses with Greenman, understood the possible penalties, and was satisfied with Greenman’s representation.

Jurisdiction and standing

Sessum adopted an argument made by co-defendant Travell Thomas that the government lacked constitutional standing and that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution. The court rejected that argument. It held that federal district courts have original jurisdiction over offenses against federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, that the wire-fraud statute was validly enacted, and that the United States Attorney’s Office was authorized to prosecute federal crimes on behalf of the United States.

The court explained that constitutional standing rules developed for private civil lawsuits do not require the government to show the same type of individualized injury when it prosecutes a criminal case. It therefore rejected Sessum’s argument that the government lacked standing to prosecute him for wire fraud.

Investigation and the “debt collector” argument

Sessum argued that better investigation would have shown that he was a purchaser of defaulted debt rather than a debt collector. He relied on a Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal statute regulating certain debt-collection practices.

The court held that this distinction did not affect the wire-fraud charges. Wire fraud requires a scheme to defraud, money or property as the object of the scheme, and use of interstate wires to further the scheme. The indictment and Sessum’s statements during his plea hearing established that he and others used false statements over the telephone and other communications to induce people to pay debts. Whether Sessum owned the debts was therefore irrelevant to whether the alleged conduct constituted wire fraud. The court concluded that Greenman was not ineffective for failing to make that challenge.

Plea negotiations

Sessum argued that the plea agreement was one-sided, lacked a sufficient exchange of benefits, and contained provisions allowing the government to prosecute certain matters later or bring new charges if his conviction were vacated. He also argued that the agreement misstated his maximum prison exposure and that he could not seek a lower sentence.

The court found that the plea agreement provided benefits. It allowed a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and fixed the stipulated Guidelines range, which the government might otherwise have argued should be higher after a trial. The agreement also allowed Sessum to seek a lower sentence, and Greenman successfully argued for a substantial downward variance.

The court further held that the agreement correctly stated that the maximum possible imprisonment for the two offenses, if the terms were imposed consecutively, was 40 years. During the plea hearing, the court explained that maximum exposure. The court found that Sessum’s statements during the plea hearing and Greenman’s affidavit showed that Sessum’s plea was knowing and voluntary, and that Greenman was not ineffective during plea negotiations.

Loss amount and sentencing

Sessum argued that Greenman was ineffective for agreeing to a loss range of $25 million to $65 million, which included the approximately $31 million received from consumers. Sessum contended that some debts were legally owed and that some people paid without being contacted or deceived.

The court held that money collected through fraudulent means could be included in the loss amount even if some underlying debts were legitimately owed. The court also considered Greenman’s investigation, including his review of emails, information from witnesses, and documents found in Sessum’s office. Greenman had learned that Sessum instructed employees to use fraudulent collection methods and that the government would argue for a larger loss amount and additional sentencing enhancements if the case went to trial.

Based on those circumstances, the court found it reasonable for Greenman to advise Sessum to accept the plea agreement’s loss range. The court also noted that it had imposed a substantial downward variance in part to account for the fact that some debts were legitimately owed, and that Greenman’s sentencing arguments contributed to that result.

Disposition

The court denied Sessum’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. It also denied his motion to expand the record. The court stated that it would not grant a certificate of appealability because Sessum had not made the required substantial showing that a federal right had been denied. The clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.