Monsanto Lopez v. United States

Background

Daniel Monsanto Lopez, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his conviction and 135-month sentence for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He entered a guilty plea without a plea agreement in February 2018 and was sentenced in May 2019.

Before indictment, the government had offered a proposed plea agreement recommending a sentencing-guidelines range of 120 to 121 months, subject to the mandatory minimum. Lopez rejected that offer. At the later plea hearing, the government submitted a letter recommending the same range, and Lopez confirmed that the sentencing judge would not be bound by that recommendation and could impose a higher sentence.

After a co-defendant’s trial revealed additional information about Lopez’s role as a leader of the conspiracy, and after an increased drug-quantity calculation, the presentence report calculated a range of 135 to 168 months. The court sentenced Lopez to 135 months.

Claim and legal standard

Lopez claimed that his initial lawyer provided ineffective assistance by advising him to reject the proposed plea agreement based on a mistaken belief that Lopez might qualify for the “safety valve.” That exception can allow a defendant to be sentenced without regard to a statutory minimum if specified conditions are met, including that the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor and truthfully provided the government with information about the offense.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Lopez had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard and that the deficient performance caused prejudice, meaning it affected the result.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Lopez’s allegations about his conversations with counsel were unsupported and conclusory. They were also contradicted by an affidavit from his initial lawyer, who stated that he had warned Lopez about the risk of being sentenced as a leader or organizer and advised him to accept the plea offer.

Even assuming that counsel had advised Lopez to reject the offer because the government could not prove that he was a leader or manager, the court held that Lopez had not shown the advice was unreasonable based on the information available to counsel at the time. Lopez did not claim that he had disclosed the full extent of his involvement to counsel during the plea negotiations. The court stated that information showing his leadership role appeared to surface later, during the co-defendant’s trial, and that failing to provide complete information during proffer sessions would itself have barred safety-valve eligibility.

The court also held that Lopez could not show prejudice. To qualify for the safety valve, he would have had to disclose his full role, which the court found would have disqualified him. Lopez continued to deny that he was the conspiracy’s leader, including in his sentencing submission. He also continued to plead innocence for more than a year after rejecting the offer and changed his plea only after the government filed motions describing evidence it intended to use at trial. In addition, the later government letter contained the same recommended guidelines range as the rejected offer, and neither the proposed agreement nor the letter bound the sentencing court. The court therefore concluded that accepting the earlier agreement would not have made a practical difference to Lopez’s sentence.

Because Lopez offered only unsupported allegations and did not present specific facts requiring development, the court also found that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted.

Disposition

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied the § 2255 petition in its entirety. The court did not issue a certificate of appealability because Lopez had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and directed the clerk to terminate the motions and close Case No. 20 Civ. 2410.