Guzman-Cabrera v. United States

Background

Jose Francisco Guzman-Cabrera pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute narcotics, and to distributing narcotics over the internet. The opinion states that he played a significant role in a conspiracy involving sham pharmacy websites that distributed hundreds of thousands of pills containing fentanyl and other opioids. The court imposed a 78-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release.

Guzman-Cabrera filed three motions challenging his sentence. The first sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence in the sentencing court. The second sought removal of a leadership-role sentencing enhancement, early release, and a copy of the sentencing transcript. The third sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and an extraordinary writ called audita querela.

Section 2255 motion

Guzman-Cabrera argued that his lawyer, Heriberto Cabrera, provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate the case, failing to file relevant motions, and failing to file a notice of appeal after being asked to do so. To establish ineffective assistance, he had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below objective professional standards and that the alleged errors probably affected the result.

The court rejected these arguments. Guzman-Cabrera identified no specific motion that his lawyer should have filed or that could have succeeded, and he identified no issue that would likely have changed the outcome. The court also relied on Cabrera’s sworn statement that he reviewed the discovery and overlooked no document or issue, Guzman-Cabrera’s statement during his guilty plea that he was satisfied with his lawyer’s representation, and the court’s earlier commendation of Cabrera’s work.

The court separately rejected the claim that Cabrera failed to file a requested appeal. Cabrera’s sworn statement said that Guzman-Cabrera never asked him to file an appeal, and the court found that Guzman-Cabrera offered no supporting facts. The court also noted that Guzman-Cabrera’s plea agreement waived a direct appeal and a collateral challenge to the sentence as long as the sentence did not exceed 97 months, and that his sentence was 78 months.

The court also rejected Guzman-Cabrera’s argument that it failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A). That rule requires the court to address whether the defendant and counsel have read and discussed the presentence report. The sentencing transcript showed that the court reviewed the report and its addendum, confirmed that counsel had reviewed them with Guzman-Cabrera, and adopted a change requested by counsel. The § 2255 motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing.

Leadership-role enhancement

Guzman-Cabrera argued that the court misapplied a three-level enhancement for his role in the offense and asked that the enhancement be removed and his sentence reduced. The presentence report characterized him as a manager or supervisor, rather than a leader, and stated that he managed a call and email center in the Dominican Republic that took pill orders from customers in the United States and directed other participants to send the pills.

The court had adopted those factual findings at sentencing after considering the factors under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), including whether Guzman-Cabrera exercised control over others and whether the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. The court denied this motion because Guzman-Cabrera had not objected to the finding at sentencing, offered no evidence contradicting it, and relied on cases the court found inapplicable.

Rule 12 and audita querela motion

Guzman-Cabrera also sought dismissal under Rule 12 and an audita querela writ, an extraordinary remedy that may be available in limited circumstances when necessary to avoid serious constitutional questions about other sentence-challenge procedures. He asked the court to release him or reduce his sentence to time served.

The court denied this motion, finding that Guzman-Cabrera had not presented a colorable constitutional claim and therefore had not shown the circumstances necessary for that extraordinary remedy.

Disposition

The court denied all three motions in their entirety, except that it granted Guzman-Cabrera’s request for a copy of the sentencing transcript. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the opinion and the transcript to him.