Bonaparte v. United States

Background

Hector Bonaparte pleaded guilty to a lesser-included drug-conspiracy offense involving 100 grams or more of heroin and 40 grams or more of fentanyl. The plea agreement included a stipulated sentencing-guideline range of 108 to 135 months and stated that Bonaparte would not directly appeal or collaterally challenge a sentence within or below that range. The agreement expressly preserved claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court sentenced Bonaparte to 96 months in prison and five years of supervised release. The Second Circuit dismissed his appeal as barred by the appeal waiver, while making a limited change to a supervised-release condition. Bonaparte then filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that the guideline calculation was incorrect, his counsel was ineffective, and the conspiracy statute was unconstitutional. He proceeded without a lawyer, so the court interpreted his petition liberally.

Appeal and Collateral-Attack Waiver

The court held that Bonaparte knowingly, voluntarily, and competently waived his right to challenge his sentence. At the plea hearing, he confirmed that he understood the plea agreement and its waiver, had discussed the agreement and the charges with his lawyers, was satisfied with his representation, and was not threatened or forced to plead guilty.

The court concluded that none of the recognized exceptions to enforcing the waiver applied. Bonaparte therefore could not pursue his sentencing arguments or other collateral challenges, but his ineffective-assistance claim remained available because the plea agreement preserved that type of claim.

Guidelines Arguments

The court also considered the sentencing arguments on their merits and concluded that they would fail even without the waiver.

The court upheld the two-level firearm enhancement. It found that the telephone and text messages showed that Bonaparte attempted to obtain a gun for himself and his co-conspirators. The court further explained that the enhancement did not require proof that Bonaparte personally possessed the firearm or knew exactly where it was. It was enough that a co-conspirator possessed a firearm and that possession was reasonably foreseeable to Bonaparte. The court found that firearms were reasonably foreseeable based on the conduct of members of the groups involved in the conspiracy.

The court also upheld the drug quantities used in the guideline calculation. Bonaparte had stipulated to 9 kilograms of heroin and 40 grams of fentanyl in the plea agreement. Independently, the court found that the quantities were supported by the record, including drugs distributed by co-conspirators and Bonaparte’s sales to a customer other than the cooperating witnesses. The court found that Bonaparte sold at least 150 to 250 grams of heroin every two weeks to that customer over a period beginning in 2017 and continuing through late 2019.

The court rejected Bonaparte’s argument that fentanyl should not count because he did not know the heroin was mixed with it. Under the law discussed by the court, a person must know that he possesses some controlled substance but does not need to know the drug’s exact type for the guideline calculation. The court therefore concluded that including the 40 grams of fentanyl was proper.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: Bonaparte had to show that his lawyers’ performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard and that the alleged errors probably affected the result. The court held that he did not satisfy either requirement.

Bonaparte argued that his lawyers failed to raise his sentencing arguments on appeal and failed to advise him about the elements of the charged crimes. He also claimed that the firearm enhancement harmed his eligibility for certain prison programs and guideline benefits. The court found that these allegations were contradicted by his sworn statements during the plea proceedings, including his statements that he understood the charges, had reviewed the indictment and plea agreement with his lawyers, and was satisfied with his representation. Because the proposed arguments were meritless, the court held that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise them.

Challenge to the Conspiracy Statute

Bonaparte argued that the conspiracy charge was unconstitutionally vague but did not identify the statute or provide supporting arguments. The court nevertheless considered the claim and held that 21 U.S.C. § 846, the statute underlying his conviction, is not unconstitutionally vague.

Disposition

The court denied Bonaparte’s § 2255 petition. It stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because Bonaparte 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 and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to close the civil case.