Marat-Uulu v. United States

Background

Bakai Marat-Uulu moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal statute allowing a federal prisoner to seek correction of a sentence on specified legal grounds, including a constitutional violation. He challenged convictions for conspiracy to commit murder for hire, using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a narcotics offense, and aggravated identity theft. He argued that his trial and sentencing lawyer, Jeremy M. Iandolo, provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court considered the motion fully briefed after the Government served its opposition and Marat-Uulu did not submit a reply. To obtain relief for ineffective assistance, Marat-Uulu had to show both that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance probably affected the result.

Claims and Analysis

Marat-Uulu first claimed that counsel induced his guilty plea by promising that he would receive no more than ten years in prison. The court rejected this claim. During the plea proceeding, Marat-Uulu stated that he understood the charges, the possible maximum and mandatory-minimum sentences, and the plea agreement’s stipulated Guidelines sentence of 204 months. He also stated that he was satisfied with counsel’s advice and that no promises other than those in the plea agreement had influenced his guilty plea. The court found his later, unsupported claim not credible and denied that basis for relief.

Marat-Uulu also claimed that, after sentencing, he directed counsel to file a notice of appeal, but counsel failed to do so. Marat-Uulu’s account said that he told counsel immediately after sentencing that he wanted to appeal and that counsel said an appeal would be taken. Counsel submitted affidavits stating that he had no recollection of meeting Marat-Uulu after sentencing and did not meet with him after sentencing. The Government acknowledged, and the court agreed, that the affidavits left some ambiguity about whether Marat-Uulu’s account was plausible.

Ruling

The court denied Marat-Uulu’s § 2255 motion in part. It ordered Iandolo to submit a supplemental affidavit addressing whether he met with Marat-Uulu on March 27, 2019, whether they communicated from that date forward, and whether Marat-Uulu requested that counsel file a notice of appeal. The affidavit was due April 22, 2022. The court reserved decision on the appeal-related claim pending that affidavit.