Medina v. United States

Background

Robert Medina filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence. Medina filed the motion without a lawyer. His criminal case involved a marijuana-distribution conspiracy and a firearm charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The jury convicted him of conspiring to distribute marijuana and of using and carrying a brandished firearm during and in relation to that drug-trafficking offense. The jury acquitted him of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine and of the charge involving Gary Clark’s death.

The court sentenced Medina to 49 months on the marijuana count and a consecutive 84 months on the firearm count, for a total of 133 months. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment on direct appeal, and the Supreme Court denied review.

Claims and Report and Recommendation

Medina raised four basic grounds for relief. First, he argued that the marijuana count was a misdemeanor rather than a felony because the indictment did not specify a marijuana quantity or allege distribution for payment. He argued that the firearm conviction therefore could not stand. Second, he argued that the court lacked authority to sentence him on the firearm count because the indictment also included a separate firearm-related charge. Third, he challenged the sentencing court’s consideration of crack-cocaine distribution as acquitted conduct. Fourth, he argued that his lawyer was ineffective for failing to raise these issues.

Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger recommended denying the petition in full. Medina objected, but the district court found that his objections largely repeated his original arguments and reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a new review of every issue.

Court’s Analysis

The court adopted the recommendation concerning the marijuana conviction. It explained that, under the Second Circuit’s decision in Outen, when an indictment and jury verdict do not specify the quantity of marijuana in a federal marijuana-distribution offense, the default provision is 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D), which carries a maximum five-year sentence. The court treated § 841(b)(4), covering distribution of a small amount of marijuana for no payment, as a mitigating exception rather than the default offense. It found that the trial evidence showed Medina was engaged in selling marijuana and that there was no basis for applying that exception. The court therefore concluded that Medina had been convicted of a felony marijuana-trafficking offense and that the related firearm conviction was properly connected to that offense.

The court also held that Medina could not use a § 2255 motion to relitigate his challenges to the firearm conviction and to the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing. The Second Circuit had already considered and rejected those arguments on direct appeal. The district court therefore found no basis to grant relief on those claims.

As to ineffective assistance of counsel, the court applied the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington: a petitioner must show both that counsel’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the alleged error caused prejudice. The court concluded that Medina satisfied neither requirement. It reasoned that counsel was not ineffective for failing to make arguments the court considered legally baseless, including the claim that the marijuana offense was only a misdemeanor. It also concluded that counsel was not ineffective for failing to renew arguments that had already been rejected on appeal.

Disposition

Judge Gardephe overruled Medina’s objections and adopted Judge Lehrburger’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Medina’s § 2255 petition. It found that Medina had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional violation, so it did not issue a certificate of appealability. It also denied payment-free appeal status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and directed the clerk to close the case.