Roderique v. United States

Background

Kareem Roderique pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fentanyl, cocaine, and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On November 9, 2022, the court sentenced him principally to 200 months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release. The court also ordered forfeiture of $182,945 and imposed a $100 special assessment.

At sentencing, the court found that Roderique was a career offender under Section 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. That finding depended in part on treating his drug-distribution conspiracy conviction in this case as a controlled-substance offense. The court also found that two earlier felony controlled-substance convictions qualified as additional predicate offenses. The career-offender finding produced a guideline range of 262 to 327 months, although the court imposed a below-guideline sentence of 200 months.

Motion under Section 2255

Roderique moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence on specified constitutional, jurisdictional, or serious legal grounds. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, meaning that his attorney’s performance fell below the required standard and affected the result.

Roderique argued that his attorney should have contended that the version of Guideline Section 4B1.2(b) in effect when he was sentenced did not include inchoate offenses, such as conspiracy, within the definition of a controlled-substance offense. He maintained that his conspiracy conviction therefore should not have counted for the career-offender enhancement. He also argued that counsel should have preserved the issue for appellate review and that he was prejudiced because his guideline range would have been considerably lower without the career-offender designation.

The Government opposed the motion. The court determined that the parties’ written submissions were sufficient and that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary.

Court’s analysis

To establish ineffective assistance under the governing constitutional standard, Roderique had to show both that his attorney’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different without the alleged error.

The court held that the proposed argument conflicted with binding Second Circuit precedent. The Second Circuit had held in several decisions that a conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 846 qualified as a controlled-substance offense under the former version of Section 4B1.2(b), including the version in effect at Roderique’s sentencing.

The court acknowledged that other federal appellate courts had reached differing conclusions about whether inchoate drug offenses qualified under the earlier guideline language. But the court explained that it was bound by the Second Circuit’s position. Because Roderique’s attorney would have been arguing against controlling circuit law, the attorney did not perform deficiently by failing to raise the argument. The court also concluded that Roderique could not show prejudice because the court itself would have been required to follow the Second Circuit’s precedent.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan denied Roderique’s Section 2255 motion. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion in the criminal case and the related civil case. It also did not grant a certificate of appealability because Roderique had not made the required substantial showing that a federal right had been denied.