Prelaj v. United States

Background

Gjeto Prelaj filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asking the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit access-device fraud and aggravated identity theft. The court sentenced him to 30 months on the fraud count followed by a mandatory consecutive 24-month sentence on the identity-theft count, for a total of 54 months.

The plea agreement stipulated to a guidelines range of 54 to 61 months and included a two-level increase for Prelaj’s leadership role. It also stated that neither party would seek an unlisted guidelines adjustment, while allowing the parties to answer the court’s questions and make appropriate arguments if the court considered a different calculation.

At sentencing, the court questioned whether a four-level leadership increase applied because the conspiracy involved at least five participants. The government explained why it had agreed to the two-level increase but also acknowledged that the four-level increase appeared applicable. The court imposed the four-level increase, producing a higher advisory guidelines range, but sentenced Prelaj to 54 months—the low end of the range specified in the plea agreement. The court stated that it would have imposed the same sentence whether the increase was two or four levels.

Claims and legal standards

Prelaj raised four grounds for relief: lack of jurisdiction based on an alleged breach of the plea agreement; ineffective assistance for failing to advise him that he could withdraw his plea after that alleged breach; ineffective assistance concerning the government’s ability to argue for the four-level leadership increase; and ineffective assistance for failing to object to alleged inaccuracies in the presentence report.

For ineffective assistance of counsel, the court applied the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington: the petitioner must show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance caused prejudice, meaning a reasonable probability of a different result. The court also interpreted the plea agreement according to the parties’ reasonable understanding of its terms.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the government did not breach the plea agreement. The government responded to the court’s specific questions, repeatedly said it was adhering to the agreed guidelines range, and ultimately requested the sentence agreed upon with defense counsel. The agreement expressly permitted the government to answer questions and make appropriate arguments when the court considered a different guidelines calculation. Because there was no breach, the court also held that it had jurisdiction to impose the sentence.

The court rejected Prelaj’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him about withdrawing from the plea agreement. Because the court found no breach, Prelaj could not show that such advice was required or that he was prejudiced by its absence.

The court also rejected Prelaj’s claim concerning the four-level leadership increase. It found that counsel correctly advised him that the agreement prohibited the government from seeking an unlisted guidelines adjustment. The court further found that the government did not advocate for the increase; it merely answered the court’s questions as the agreement allowed. Prelaj therefore failed to show either deficient performance or prejudice.

Finally, the court rejected the claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the presentence report or request a fact-finding hearing. The court found that Prelaj did not identify specific inaccurate facts. It also noted that the court had explained his right to a hearing and that Prelaj chose to proceed with sentencing. The court concluded that counsel’s decision fell within the range of reasonable professional assistance. It additionally found no prejudice because the record supported Prelaj’s leadership role and the court had expressly stated that the sentence would have been the same under either leadership enhancement.

Disposition

The court denied the § 2255 petition. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Prelaj had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Prelaj could not proceed without paying the required appeal fees. The court directed the clerk to close the civil case and terminate the related motion in the criminal case.