Wright v. United States

Background

John Wright moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure that allows a person to challenge the legality of a sentence, asking the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Wright represented himself.

Wright pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. His plea agreement treated him as a “career offender” under the Sentencing Guidelines and calculated a guideline range of 188 to 235 months. The agreement also waived his right to appeal or otherwise challenge a sentence within or below that range. The court sentenced Wright principally to 120 months in prison.

Appellate Waiver and Ineffective Assistance

The court held that Wright knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea agreement and waived his appellate and collateral-attack rights. During the plea proceeding, Wright confirmed that he understood the agreement and specifically acknowledged that he was giving up the right to challenge a sentence within or below the 188-to-235-month range. He also said that no one had threatened or forced him to plead guilty or enter the agreement.

Wright argued that his lawyer was ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutionality of the career-offender provisions. The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: the lawyer’s performance must have fallen below an objectively reasonable standard, and there must be a reasonable probability that the result would have been different without the lawyer’s errors.

The court concluded that Wright could not show the required prejudice. It relied on Beckles v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause. The court therefore held that the plea agreement was enforceable and that the appellate waiver barred Wright’s challenge. The court also rejected his related claim that counsel was deficient for failing to make the same constitutional argument at sentencing.

Merits

The court stated that Wright’s petition would fail even if the appellate waiver were disregarded. Wright made two substantive arguments. First, he argued that the court should resentence him without the career-offender enhancement because it was unconstitutional under Johnson v. United States. The court held that Beckles foreclosed that argument.

Second, Wright argued that his prior conviction for second-degree robbery was not a “crime of violence” under the applicable guideline provision. The court relied on Second Circuit precedent holding that every degree of New York robbery is a crime of violence under the guideline’s residual clause.

Disposition

Judge William H. Pauley III denied Wright’s sentence challenge. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Wright had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case.