Walters v. United States

Background

Dashawn Walters filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. He challenged convictions entered after his guilty plea to one count of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846, and one count of using and carrying a brandished firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). He also moved for appointment of new counsel.

The plea agreement stated that Walters would not file a direct appeal or bring a collateral challenge, including a challenge under § 2255. During the plea proceedings, Walters confirmed that he understood the waiver, the charges, and the consequences of pleading guilty, and said that he was satisfied with his attorney, Louis V. Fasulo. The Court later sentenced Walters to 114 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.

Walters’s Claims

Walters argued that Fasulo provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. He also argued that the drug quantity alleged by the Government was insufficient to support a felony, that the Government had not established a conspiracy because it had not identified a specific co-conspirator and had shown only a buyer-seller transaction, and that the firearm conviction lacked a qualifying drug-trafficking predicate. He further argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya invalidated his firearm conviction. The Government and Fasulo opposed the petition.

Court’s Analysis

The Court held that the ineffective-assistance claim lacked merit. Applying the rule from Strickland v. Washington, the Court explained that a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficiency probably affected the result. The Court relied on Fasulo’s evidence that he reviewed discovery, communicated with the prosecutor, researched the law, attended conferences, reviewed the presentence report and the Government’s sentencing submission, submitted a sentencing memorandum, and advised Walters about the case, plea, law, and potential sentences. The Court also stated that Walters had not shown prejudice.

The Court rejected Walters’s challenges to the drug conspiracy conviction. It held that conspiring to distribute crack cocaine is a felony under the Controlled Substances Act regardless of the quantity involved. It also held that the Government did not have to prove the identities of the co-conspirators and did not have to prove an overt act for a conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846. The Court found that Walters’s plea admissions established that he agreed with others to distribute and possess crack cocaine and that he possessed and displayed a firearm during the related crime.

The Court held that Walters’s challenge to the firearm conviction failed because the plea agreement’s appeal waiver barred the claim. The Court also held that the claim failed on the merits: Dimaya and United States v. Davis invalidated the residual clause used to define certain crimes of violence, but did not alter the definition of a drug-trafficking crime. Because Walters’s firearm conviction was based on a drug-trafficking conspiracy, those decisions did not affect his conviction.

Disposition

The Court denied the motion to vacate and denied the motion to appoint counsel. It requested that the Clerk close the case. The Court did not recommend issuing a certificate of appealability because Walters had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied.