Hovhannisyan v. United States

Background

Vache Hovhannisyan asked the court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to seek correction of a sentence, to vacate his sentence after pleading guilty. The related criminal case was docketed as No. 17 Cr. 350 (LAP). Hovhannisyan pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to conduct the affairs of a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Judge Katherine B. Forrest sentenced him to 48 months’ imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release, and imposed a mandatory $100 special assessment.

The written plea agreement concerned one racketeering-conspiracy count involving two alleged predicate activities: a conspiracy involving interstate cargo theft and sale of stolen cargo, and a conspiracy involving fraud related to identification documents. During the plea hearing, Hovhannisyan admitted that he agreed with people involved in the enterprise to buy or sell cargo items taken by the group and to use fake identification documents to cash checks.

Legal standard

The court applied the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington for ineffective assistance of counsel. Hovhannisyan had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard and that the performance caused prejudice—meaning a reasonable probability that the proceeding would have had a different result. The court also applied this test to the claim that counsel mishandled a plea offer.

Claims and analysis

Hovhannisyan first argued that counsel should have investigated evidence concerning identity theft. The court rejected the claim because neither the indictment nor the plea agreement charged identity theft. The court said the identification-document allegation involved fraud related to identification documents, not identity theft. It also relied on Hovhannisyan’s sworn admission that he participated in fraud involving identification documents. The court found neither deficient performance nor prejudice.

Second, Hovhannisyan argued that counsel should have challenged a sentencing enhancement based on a supervisory role. The court found that the plea agreement did not include that enhancement and that neither the parties nor the court adopted the presentence report’s proposed enhancement. The court therefore rejected this claim.

Third, Hovhannisyan claimed that counsel failed to timely communicate a two-year plea offer. He provided no additional evidence supporting the allegation. The government submitted a sworn declaration stating that no such offer was considered or extended and that the government made only one offer, which became the written plea agreement. The court also found the claim inconsistent with Hovhannisyan’s statements during the plea hearing approving counsel’s conduct. The claim failed.

Fourth, Hovhannisyan claimed that counsel told him to remain silent at sentencing even though he wanted to express remorse. The court found that the record showed he was given an opportunity to speak, did speak, and expressed remorse. The court also stated that it considered the mitigating circumstances, including counsel’s arguments, letters submitted by Hovhannisyan, and his statement at the hearing. The court rejected this claim for failure to show unreasonable performance or prejudice.

Finally, Hovhannisyan’s new attorney argued that counsel failed to tell him that the plea agreement could lead to deportation. The court noted that the signed plea agreement warned that, if Hovhannisyan was not a United States citizen, deportation was very likely to be presumptively mandatory and that he was at risk of deportation. The court also noted that Hovhannisyan told the plea court that he understood the possible immigration consequences and had discussed them with counsel. The court rejected the final claim.

Disposition

The court denied Hovhannisyan’s motion to vacate in its entirety. It found that he had not established a violation of his constitutional rights and stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue.