Trent v. United States

WALTER LEON TRENT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

No. 2:14-CR-40

No. 2:16-CV-82

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE

March 18, 2019

Judge Jordan

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute Morphine and being a felon in possession of a firearm, Walter Leon Trent ("Petitioner") was sentenced to 71 imprisonment. Petitioner has now filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. 1].¹ Petitioner has also submitted a supporting brief [Doc. 2], along with numerous additional filings. Among those are: motions for documents or to compel discovery [Docs. 6-7]; a supplement to his § 2255 motion [Doc. 8]; a motion for a ruling on his § 2255 motion [Doc. 13]; a motion to amend his motion to vacate [Doc. 15]; a motion for default on the government [Doc. 16]; and a motion to remove his motion seeking documents [Doc. 24].

The United States responded in opposition first to Petitioner's motion to vacate [Doc. 4], then to his supplement and motions to amend, for discovery and for a default [Doc. 18]. Petitioner replied to the Government's response to the § 2255 motion [Doc. 5], as well as to its latter response to his supplement and motions [Doc. 21].

The Court finds that the materials thus submitted, together with the record in the underlying criminal case, conclusively show that Petitioner is not entitled to relief on his § 2255 claims. Accordingly, the Court will decide Petitioner's motion to vacate without an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Todaro, 982 F.2d 1025, 1028 (6th Cir. 1993). For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Petitioner's § 2255 motion lacks merit and, thus, will DENY and DISMISS his § 2255 motion WITH PREJUDICE.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 8, 2013, a federal grand jury filed a 9-count Indictment charging Petitioner with various offenses [Doc. 1 in Case No. 2:14-CR-40]. This Indictment alleged that Petitioner conspired to possess with the intent to distribute Morphine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and 846 (Count 1); conspired to possess with the intent to distribute Suboxone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(E) and 846 (Count 2); possessed a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 922(g)(1) (Counts 3-8); and possessed one or more firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, a violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 924(c)(1)(A) (Count 9) [Id., Case No. 2:14-CR-40].

Petitioner initially retained Attorney Renfro Baird to represent him and later retained Attorney Richard A. Spivey, who acted as Petitioner's lead counsel [Docs. 4, 27 in Case No. 2:14-CR-40]. The parties negotiated a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, in which Petitioner would plead guilty to Counts 1 and 7 of the Indictment, with an agreed sentence of 78-months' imprisonment [Doc. 29 in Case No. 2:14-CR-40]. All remaining counts were to be dismissed at sentencing [Id.]. In that agreement, Petitioner acknowledged that he was accountable for distributing approximately 200 Morphine 100 mg pills per month for a 16-month period and that those figures computed to a total of 320 grams of Morphine. [Id. ¶ 4(g) in Case No. 2:14-CR-40].Petitioner also agreed to the application of three two-level enhancements under United States Sentencing Guidelines ("USSG") §§ 2D1.1(b)(1) (possession of a dangerous weapon, namely, the various handguns located in his residence), 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) (possession of between 3 and 7 firearms), and 2D1.1(b)(12) (maintaining a drug-distribution premises) [Id. ¶ 4(h)-(j) in Case No. 2:14-CR-49]. Petitioner entered his guilty pleas to those two counts [Doc. 32 (criminal minutes, Jan. 8, 2015) in Case No. 2:14-CR-40], and, thereafter, the U.S. Probation Office prepared a Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") to assist the Court in sentencing Petitioner [Doc. 34 (sealed) in Case No. 2:14-CR-40].

When a defendant has been convicted of multiple counts, as was Petitioner, USSG § 3D1.1 establishes a three-step procedure for determining total combined offense levels: "(i) all counts are separated into "groups" of "closely related" counts in accordance with the rules set forth in § 3D1.2, which allow for single as well as multiple-count groups; (ii) the count with the highest offense level in each group is used to determine that group's offense level in accordance with the rules set forth in § 3D1.3; and (iii) if application of § 3D1.2 results in more than one group, then, in accordance with the rules set forth in § 3D1.4, each group is assigned a number of "units," and these units are used to increase the offense level of the group with the highest offense level, thus producing a "total combined offense level" for the entire multi-count conviction." United States v. Napoli, 179 F.3d 1, 6 (2d Cir. 1999).

The Morphine-conspiracy offense in Count 1 and the felon-in-possession offense in Count 7 were grouped under USSG § 3D1.2(d). Petitioner's base level offense for Count 1 was 24 because it involved 320 grams of Morphine, with a equivalency of 160 kilograms of Marijuana. Increasing the base offense level by two levels under § 2D1.1(b)(1) (possession of a dangerousweapon) and two levels under § 2D1.1(B)(12) (maintaining a drug-distribution premises) resulted in an adjusted offense level of 28 for the Count 1 group.

The base level offense for the felon-in-possession offense in Count 7 was 14, pursuant to § 2K2.1(4)(6)(A). A two-level increase was applied under § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) because six firearms were found in Petitioner's residence. Four levels were added for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), which resulted in an adjusted offense level of 20. Because the higher offense level was 28 in Count 1, the total combined offense level for both counts was 28. Three points were deducted from that figure for acceptance of responsibility, leading to a total offense level of 25.

Based on a criminal history category of I and a total offense level of 25, Petitioner's advisory guidelines range was 57 to 71 months imprisonment. Because the 78-month sentence provided for in the plea agreement exceeded Petitioner's guidelines range, the parties amended the plea agreement to an agreed-upon sentence of 71 months [Doc. 40 in Case No. 2:14-CR-40]. There were no objections to Petitioner's PSR and the Court imposed a total 71-month sentence [Docs. 35, 41 in Case No. 2:14-CR-40].

Petitioner did not appeal, in keeping with his limited waiver of appeal rights in the plea agreement [Doc. 29 ¶ 10(a) in Case No. 2:14-CR-40]. There followed this instant § 2255 motion.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The factual scenario surrounding Petitioner's offenses is derived from his stipulations in his plea agreement [Id. ¶4(a)-(f) in Case No. 2:14-CR-40].

On April 23, 2013, Sergeant David Benton, a member of the Narcotics Division of the Hawkins County, Tennessee Sheriff's Department, obtained a state search warrant for Petitioner's residence, based, in part, on statements made by a confidential informant that Petitioner was sellingprescription drugs. The informant indicated that he had been to Petitioner's residence on four occasions with others who had purchased anywhere from one to five tablets of Opana, a schedule II-controlled substance. Additionally, surveillance of the residence showed that several vehicles would come to the residence, would stay for only a short period of time, and then would leave—all of which was consistent with drug dealing activity.

On April 25, 2013, a state search warrant was executed at Petitioner's residence. During the search, law enforcement officers recovered 12 Morphine pills, several Suboxone strips, and 5 empty prescription bottles bearing others' names. Petitioner's wallet contained $1,572.00.

Petitioner cooperated with law enforcement officers and provided a truthful statement regarding his drug distribution. Petitioner admitted that he had never used drugs but that he sold them, stating that he became a "big time" dealer after his incarceration for a prior Marijuana-related conviction. Additionally, Petitioner said that he has seven or eight "customers" who would bring him prescriptions after the prescriptions are filled and that he paid these "customers" a flat rate of $20 per pill. Petitioner stated that he recently started getting about 300-400 Roxys, 200 Morphine pills, and 150 Opanas, and 76 Suboxone strips per month and that he resells the Roxys and Opanas for $30 each, the Morphine for between $30-$40, and the Suboxone for $20 per strip.

Officers executing the search warrant also located six firearms throughout Petitioner's house. Petitioner admits that one of these firearms was the Amadeo Rossi, .357 magnum revolver listed in Count 7 of the Indictment. Petitioner further admitted that the Amadeo Rossi, .357 magnum revolver was manufactured outside the state of Tennessee and therefore traveled in or affected interstate or foreign commerce.

Based on the evidence summarized above, Petitioner pled guilty and was convicted of the two counts as set forth in his plea agreement.

The Court turns first to Petitioner's motions and submissions filed after his initial § 2255 motion.

III. PETITIONER'S LATER-FILED MOTIONS

A. Motion for Documents

In Petitioner's letter motion for documents [Doc. 6], he asks that either the Court or his attorney send him all discovery "pertaining to his case," including forms, memos, and evidence; all Hawkins County, Tennessee search warrants; a copy of his Presentence Investigation Report; a list of all property, including cash and belongings, that was confiscated by the Department of Justice and the identification of the holder(s) of such property; and a list of property taken by Hawkins County.

After filing his letter motion seeking documents, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that his motion for documents be removed from the case [Doc. 24, "Motion to Remove Document 50"]. Pet...