Velazquez v. United States

Background

Adalberto Velazquez moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure that allows a prisoner to seek correction of a sentence imposed in violation of federal law or the Constitution. He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, meaning that his lawyer’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and caused prejudice. His two claims were that counsel failed to challenge his career-offender status and failed to request a downward departure, meaning a sentence below the applicable advisory sentencing range.

Velazquez was serving a 188-month sentence for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fentanyl and heroin. He pleaded guilty under a plea agreement. During the plea proceeding, the court explained that the parties had agreed to an advisory Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months and that Velazquez would waive his right to appeal or otherwise challenge a sentence of 235 months or less. Velazquez said that he understood the agreement and had willingly signed it.

At sentencing, defense counsel argued that treating Velazquez as a career offender overstated the seriousness of his older criminal conduct. Counsel also requested a 60-month sentence based on Velazquez’s history of illiteracy and drug addiction, family support, age, and declining health. The court considered a sentence below the Guidelines range but imposed 188 months.

No Evidentiary Hearing

The court determined that no hearing was required because the written submissions and existing case records resolved both claims. The presentence report and plea materials identified the convictions used for the career-offender determination, and the sentencing transcript showed that counsel had requested a sentence below the Guidelines range.

Waiver of Sentence Challenge

The court held that Velazquez knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to challenge his 188-month sentence. The plea judge found him competent to enter an informed guilty plea, explained the waiver, and confirmed that Velazquez understood it. Velazquez also said that he had discussed the consequences of pleading guilty with counsel and was satisfied with counsel’s representation.

The court recognized that a waiver may not prevent a challenge to the constitutionality of the plea process, including certain ineffective-assistance claims. It therefore considered the claims on their merits despite finding the waiver valid and enforceable.

Ineffective-Assistance Claims

Career-offender status. Velazquez argued that his 1998 felony conviction should not have counted because it was outside the Sentencing Guidelines’ 15-year period. The court rejected that argument. The offense of conviction began in 2015, so the relevant period extended back to 2000. Although the 1998 conviction occurred before that period, Velazquez’s imprisonment on that conviction continued until May 27, 2003. Because the imprisonment extended into the relevant period, the conviction counted. Along with a separate 2007 controlled-substance conviction, it provided the two prior felony controlled-substance convictions required for career-offender status. The court therefore found no basis for counsel to challenge that designation.

Request for a lower sentence. The court found that counsel had in fact requested a downward departure and sought a 60-month sentence. The sentencing court considered the request and rejected a sentence below the Guidelines range after considering the applicable sentencing policy and the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court therefore rejected Velazquez’s claim that counsel had failed to request a lower sentence.

Disposition

The court denied Velazquez’s § 2255 motion. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Velazquez had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Velazquez could not proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.