Hall v. United States, CIVIL CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00362-MR
| Decision Date | 30 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:16-cr-00147-MR-WCM-1,CIVIL CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00362-MR |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | CARL JACK HALL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. [CV Doc. 1].1
On December 6, 2016, Petitioner Carl Jack Hall ("Petitioner") was charged in a Bill of Indictment with one count of receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) (Count One) and one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)B)(Count Two). [CR Doc. 1: Indictment]. Petitioner moved to suppress evidence that was allegedly obtained in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment and to dismiss the Indictment for outrageous government conduct.2 [CR Doc. 18; see CR Docs. 27, 33]. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner's motion to suppress and to dismiss be denied for the reasons stated in his Memorandum and Recommendation. [CR Doc. 40]. Petitioner waived filing objections. [CR Doc. 41]. Thereafter, this Court accepted the Magistrate's Memorandum and Recommendation and denied Petitioner's motion to suppress. [CR Doc. 44]. On January 2, 2018, the Government filed its witness list for trial. [CR Doc. 45]. Neither David Cavanaugh nor Samantha Ashe was listed. [Id.].
On January 3, 2018, jury selection was conducted. Before the jury was selected, the Court allowed the Government to introduce the plea agreement offered to Petitioner on the record. [CR Doc. 88 at 3: Jury Selection Tr.]. The Government noted, without objection, that it sent an email to Petitioner's attorney on February 9, 2017 including the proposed plea agreement andfactual basis. [Id. at 4]. Pursuant to this plea agreement, Petitioner could have pleaded guilty to Count Two, for possession and access with intent to view child pornography, and the Government would have dismissed Count One. [See id. at 4-5]. The factual basis, which contained facts consistent with the elements of Count Two and associated relevant conduct, was incorporated into the plea agreement. [See id. at 5-6]. Count Two had no mandatory minimum sentence and a statutory maximum of 20 years, while Count One carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and a 20-year maximum sentence. [Id. at 5]. Petitioner acknowledged on the record that he had reviewed the agreement with his attorney and decided not to accept it. [See id. at 5-6].
On January 12, 2018, the Government filed an amended witness list, which included David Cavanaugh. [CR Doc. 46]. The next day the Government filed a second amended witness list, which also included Samantha Ashe. [CR Doc. 47]. Petitioner proceeded to trial on January 16, 2018. The Government called several witnesses, including Ashe and Cavanaugh. [See CR Doc. 85 at 2: Trial Tr.]. Cavanaugh testified, in pertinent part, as follows. Cavanaugh lived with Petitioner in or around 2015 for a period of approximately four to six months at Aston Park Tower3 inAsheville, North Carolina. [Id. at 64-65]. Cavanaugh was introduced to Petitioner by Ashe. [Id. at 65, 70]. While Cavanaugh lived with Petitioner, Cavanaugh frequently saw Petitioner use a computer, which was protected by fingerprint access. Only Petitioner was able to access Petitioner's computer, although Petitioner would allow others to use it once accessed. [Id. at 68, 70]. Cavanaugh further testified that he saw Petitioner viewing child pornography on the computer one time in 2015 at Aston Park Tower. [CR Doc. 85 at 72]. In 2016, for approximately two or three months, Cavanaugh lived with Petitioner at a hotel. [Id. at 73]. While staying together at the hotel, Cavanaugh witnessed Petitioner viewing a pornographic video depicting young girls engaging in sexual activities. [Id. at 75-76]. After this second incident, Cavanaugh moved out of the hotel because he did not like what he saw Petitioner doing. [Id. at 76].
Samantha Ashe testified, in pertinent part, as follows. In or around 2014 and 2015, Ashe frequently visited Petitioner's apartment in Aston Park Tower. [CR Doc. 85 at 97, 109, 111]. She stayed overnight only a handful of times. [Id. at 111]. During that period, Petitioner had a laptop computer that was fingerprint and password protected. Only Petitioner's fingerprint was programmed to allow access to the computer and Petitioner did not share the password with anyone. [Id. at 99-100]. Petitioner was "always onthe computer." [Id. at 102, 114]. Petitioner would sometimes tell Ashe that she could not use the computer because he was "downloading software." [Id. at 103]. Petitioner could build his own computer and told Ashe that "there was, like, a black hole ... a whole Internet that people [don't] know about" and where "people don't know where you're going." [Id. at 103-04]. Ashe once saw Petitioner viewing a pornographic video, which depicted a man "shaving a little girl's private area." [Id. at 104, 106, 114-15]. Ashe never saw anyone but Petitioner viewing child pornography at the apartment. [Id. at 107]. Ashe did not report Petitioner to the police because she did not know it was illegal to view such images available on the internet. [Id. at 115].
Petitioner's counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure at the close of the Government's evidence. [CR Doc. 85 at 137]. Counsel argued that while the Government proved that the computer identified as Petitioner's contained child pornography, the Government had not proven that it was Petitioner and not someone else in the apartment that put it there. [Id.]. The Court denied Petitioner's Rule 29 motion, reasoning that, "taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government a rational jury could determine that the defendant was the one who had sole access to the computer for the purposeof receiving and possessing and dealing with the images on that computer."4 [Id. at 139].
Petitioner then testified on his own behalf. He explicitly and repeatedly denied ever accessing or viewing any child pornography on his computer and surmised that guests in his apartment, who had access to his password, must have been responsible for the pornography. [See id. at 155-215]. Specifically, Petitioner testified that he gave out his WiFi password to guests and that the WiFi password was the same as his computer password. He further testified that he wrote the WiFi password (and, therefore, his computer password) on a piece of masking tape on the router. [Id.]. He also testified that Cavanaugh was "a whole lot more capable than [he] let on." [Id. at 166].
The jury found Petitioner guilty on both counts. [CR Doc. 55: Jury Verdict]. A probation officer prepared a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) in advance of sentencing. [CR Doc. 67: PSR]. The probation officer recommended a Total Offense Level of 32, which included a total increase of 12 levels for specific offense characteristics under U.S.S.G. §2G2.2(b), and a criminal history category of IV. [Id. at ¶¶ 20-23, 30, 56]. This yieldeda guideline range of 168 to 210 months' imprisonment. [Id. at ¶ 118]. At sentencing, however, the Court found the guideline range to be "of no guidance to the court in this case as it is with respect to the vast majority of cases under this statute." [CR Doc. 87 at 34: Sentencing Tr.]. The Court, instead, "look[ed] strictly to the factors for sentencing under the statute Section 3553(a)." [Id.]. Ultimately, the Court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent sentences of 108 months on each count. [CR Doc. 72 at 2; see CR Doc. 87 at 37]. Judgment was entered the next day. [Id.].
Petitioner appealed the Court's judgment. [CR Doc. 74: Notice of Appeal]. On appeal, Petitioner challenged the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 and the propriety of one of the Court's jury instructions and argued that, at sentencing, the Court deprived him of effective assistance of counsel. United States v. Hall, 785 Fed. App'x 98, 99 (4th Cir. 2019). The Fourth Circuit affirmed this Court's judgment on August 29, 2019. Id. at 101. Petitioner did not petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
On December 4, 2020, Petitioner timely filed the instant Section 2255 Motion to Vacate.5 [CV Doc. 1]. In his motion, Petitioner argues that hereceived ineffective assistance of counsel where (1) his attorney identified and disclosed witnesses who may testify for the defense when she knew the witnesses were going to testify against the defense, and one of these witnesses was previously unknown to the Government; (2) there was a conflict of interest between Petitioner and his attorney; (3) his attorney's representation was deficient relative to a plea bargain; and (4) Petitioner was not consulted on the issues raised in his direct appeal. [CV Doc. 1 at 4-5, 7-8]. For relief, Petitioner asks "to be allowed to accept whatever plea bargain and terms originally offered." [Id. at 12]. He does not request a new trial. [See id.].
A federal prisoner claiming that his "sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings provides that courts are to promptly examine motions to vacate, along with "any attached exhibits and the record of prior proceedings" to determine whetherthe petitioner is entitled to any relief on the claims set forth therein. After examining the record in this matter, the Court finds that Petitioner's Motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial