Shaw v. United States

Background

Jerome Shaw, representing himself, pleaded guilty to four federal offenses involving the interstate transportation, receipt, sale, and conspiracy-related handling of stolen property and a stolen vehicle. The court later sentenced him to 180 months in prison and imposed a $100,000 forfeiture order.

At the time of Shaw’s guilty plea, the government submitted a letter calculating a Sentencing Guidelines range of 100 to 125 months. The court warned Shaw that neither the government nor the court was bound by that range and that only the court could impose his sentence. After an evidentiary hearing about relevant burglaries and Shaw’s criminal history, the court calculated a Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months. It sentenced Shaw to 180 months, which was within that range. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, and the Supreme Court denied review on March 23, 2020.

Claims and timeliness

Shaw filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure that allows a prisoner to challenge an unlawful federal sentence. He argued that the sentencing court failed to explain an alleged upward departure from the 120-to-125-month range he said he had agreed to when pleading guilty. He also claimed that his sentencing lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise that alleged error. Shaw acknowledged that he had not raised the Guidelines-based claim on direct appeal.

The motion was filed more than one year after Shaw’s conviction became final. Shaw requested equitable tolling, meaning an exception extending the filing deadline in extraordinary circumstances, based on pandemic-related restrictions that allegedly limited his access to his prison’s legal department.

The court rejected that request. It held that Shaw offered only a general assertion about restricted access and did not explain how the restrictions prevented him from filing on time. The court also noted that he knew the facts supporting his claim before the pandemic and did not assert that he tried to file during the one-year limitations period. The court therefore held that the motion was time-barred.

Merits

The court stated that even if equitable tolling applied, Shaw’s motion would fail on the merits. It found that Shaw had not agreed to a maximum sentence of 125 months. During the plea hearing, the court advised him that he faced a maximum term of 35 years and that the court—not the government or anyone else—would determine the sentence. The court also made clear that the government’s initial Guidelines calculation was not binding.

The court further held that Shaw’s 180-month sentence was within the applicable Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months, not above that range. It therefore found no sentencing error. To the extent Shaw was challenging the factual findings from the evidentiary hearing or the denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, the court stated that the Court of Appeals had already rejected those arguments and that Shaw could not relitigate them in a Section 2255 motion.

The ineffective-assistance claim also failed. The court explained that such a claim requires showing both objectively deficient legal performance and actual prejudice. Because the proposed sentencing objection lacked merit, the court held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to make it.

Disposition

The court denied Shaw’s Section 2255 motion. It did not issue a certificate of appealability because Shaw had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Shaw could not proceed with an appeal without paying the required filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate docket entries 80 and 82 in the criminal case, close the civil case, and mail Shaw a copy of the order.