Brown v. United States

Background

John Brown, representing himself, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He had pleaded guilty to four counts of Hobbs Act robbery and received a principal sentence of 72 months’ imprisonment. His plea agreement included a waiver of appeals and collateral challenges for a sentence within or below the stipulated Guidelines range. Because the government did not rely on that waiver, the court declined to base its decision on it.

Brown argued that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance, meaning constitutionally inadequate legal representation. His claims concerned the failure to file a notice of appeal, the failure to consult with him about an appeal, and the failure to pursue certain arguments about the seizure of physical evidence.

Appeal-related claims

The court found that Brown’s account—that he instructed his lawyer to file an appeal immediately after sentencing—was not credible. The lawyer denied receiving that instruction, stated that he knew he had to file an appeal if requested even despite the appeal waiver, and said he would have done so if Brown had asked. The court also relied on Brown’s later written communications with counsel, which did not support his claim that he had made the request at sentencing. The court found that Brown first asked about an appeal in writing on July 23, 2019, after the appeal deadline had passed.

The court declined to hold a full testimonial hearing, finding that one would add little or nothing to the written submissions. It concluded that counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal. The court also rejected Brown’s related claim that counsel failed to consult with him about an appeal. It found that counsel had discussed the appeal waiver with Brown, that Brown identified no potential appeal grounds, and that Brown had not shown an interest in appealing before the deadline.

Physical-evidence claims

The court granted Brown’s request to amend his filing, construing his supplemental submission as a motion to amend. It then rejected his claims concerning physical evidence. The record showed that counsel had filed a motion to suppress evidence, participated in hearings, and challenged the warrantless arrest, protective sweep, and search warrant. The court had previously found those actions lawful and had denied the suppression motion.

The court rejected Brown’s argument that counsel should have pursued videos from the night of his arrest because counsel had asked the government whether such videos existed, and there was no evidence that a video existed. The court also found Brown’s allegations that the government fabricated statements or tampered with evidence to be unsupported and speculative. It concluded that Brown’s disagreements with counsel about litigation strategy did not establish ineffective assistance under the governing standard.

Disposition

The court denied Brown’s section 2255 petition. It directed the clerk to close the civil case and terminate the listed motions in both the civil and related criminal cases. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Brown had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It further denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The judge identified in the opinion is Castel; the text does not provide his first name.