Larkin v. United States

Background

Derrek Larkin moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 72-month sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He filed the motion while his direct appeal was pending. The court held the motion until the Second Circuit received notice that Larkin had withdrawn his appeal.

Larkin raised three grounds: (1) that the Bureau of Prisons violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide a continuous positive airway pressure machine for his sleep apnea; (2) that his sentence was unjust because allegedly more culpable co-defendants received different sentences; and (3) that Federal Medical Center Devens and its staff were medically negligent in addressing his sleep apnea, vertigo, anxiety, and other medical needs.

Plea-agreement waiver

Larkin’s plea agreement said that he would not bring a collateral challenge—including a motion under § 2255 or § 2241—to a sentence within or below the stipulated Guidelines range of 92 to 115 months. The court explained that such waivers are generally enforceable when the defendant understood and voluntarily accepted them.

The court found that Larkin knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to challenge his sentence. The court had questioned him about the waiver during both his plea hearing and sentencing hearing, and he confirmed that he understood it. Larkin did not claim that the waiver was unknowing or involuntary.

Medical-treatment grounds

The court stated that § 2255 challenges the sentence as imposed, not the way the sentence is carried out. A challenge to prison conditions or medical treatment is instead properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the warden in the district where the person is confined. The court determined that Larkin’s first and third grounds concerned his medical treatment in prison. It therefore denied the motion as to those two grounds. The court also noted that Larkin’s plea agreement waived his right to bring a collateral challenge under § 2241.

Sentencing-disparity ground

The court concluded that Larkin’s sentencing-disparity claim was an appropriate type of claim for a § 2255 motion, but denied it as meritless. Larkin had received 72 months, which was below the stipulated Guidelines range of 92 to 115 months. The court relied on its earlier explanation that it had considered Larkin’s significant criminal history, sentences imposed on defendants in the related conspiracy and similarly situated defendants, the widespread telemarketing fraud and harm to victims, and the fact that Larkin was on supervised release after serving a 70-month federal narcotics sentence when he committed the charged offense.

Disposition

The court denied Larkin’s § 2255 motion in full. It denied the first and third grounds because they challenged the execution of his sentence and were not properly brought under § 2255, and it denied the second ground on the merits.