Decker v. United States

Background

Andre Decker pleaded guilty to being a person previously convicted of a felony who possessed a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On July 13, 2021, the court sentenced him to 48 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. The court stated that the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range was 57 to 71 months in prison.

On June 15, 2022, Decker filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That procedure allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, correct, or set aside a sentence imposed unlawfully or in violation of federal law or constitutional rights. Decker represented himself. He argued that he was denied his right to appeal, that the Government failed to disclose favorable or exculpatory evidence, and that his lawyers provided ineffective assistance.

Appeal claim

Decker said he tried to mail a notarized notice of appeal but that the notice was not processed. The court’s review of the docket showed that his notice had mistakenly been sent to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rather than filed in the district court. The court also noted that a criminal notice of appeal generally must be filed within 14 days after judgment, subject to a limited extension for good cause or excusable neglect.

The court held that even if Decker had timely filed an appeal, his plea agreement barred the challenge. Under that agreement, Decker waived a direct appeal and collateral challenges—including a petition under § 2255—for a sentence at or below the applicable stated range. Because Decker received a 48-month sentence, the court held that the agreement prevented his challenge.

Evidence-disclosure claim

Decker alleged that the Government withheld a videotaped interview of an individual identified as “Donahue,” who allegedly provided information about firearms he had sold. Decker claimed that the evidence could have supported a defense based on authorized public activity and that he would not have pleaded guilty if the Government had disclosed it.

The court held that Decker knowingly waived challenges based on undisclosed discovery, evidence favorable to him under the constitutional disclosure rule commonly called Brady, and impeachment evidence, subject to the agreement’s stated exception for information establishing factual innocence. The court pointed to the plea hearing, where Decker confirmed that he understood the waiver.

The court also found the claim meritless on the substance. It said it was unclear how the alleged evidence would have supported a defense based on authorized public activity. The court further relied on Decker’s sworn plea-hearing statements that he possessed the firearm, that no one else was involved in that possession, and that he knew the conduct was unlawful. The court therefore denied the evidence-disclosure claim.

Ineffective-assistance claims

Decker argued that his lawyers were ineffective because they did not move to compel production of the videotape, did not move to dismiss the indictment based on jail restrictions on reviewing electronic discovery, and did not seek to postpone sentencing.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show both that the lawyers’ performance was objectively deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced him. In the guilty-plea context, prejudice generally requires showing a reasonable probability that, without the lawyers’ errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial.

The court held that Decker’s claims about the videotape, electronic discovery, and dismissal of the indictment concerned events before his guilty plea and did not challenge whether his plea was voluntary and informed. The court also found that Decker’s sworn statements during the plea hearing contradicted his later assertions. He had stated that he was satisfied with his lawyers and was freely and voluntarily pleading guilty, and he had not raised the discovery-access issue during the plea or sentencing proceedings.

The court additionally held that Decker had not shown objectively deficient performance. It found that he did not identify a sound basis for the proposed public-activity defense or explain how reviewing the electronic discovery would have caused him to reject the plea and proceed to trial. The court also found no actual prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Decker’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in all respects. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 68. The Government was directed to mail Decker a copy of the order and file proof of service by August 11, 2023.