Hall v. United States
| Decision Date | 22 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0094-CG-C,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 11-0165-CG-C |
| Parties | GERALD D. HALL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
This cause is before the Court on petitioner Gerald D. Halls' motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 39), the response in opposition filed by the United States (Doc. 47), petitioner's reply to the government's response (Doc. 48), Hall's supplemental submission of additional authority (Doc. 50 & 51), the Government's supplemental response in opposition (Doc. 54) and Hall's reply in opposition to the United States' response (Doc. 58). This action has been referred to the undersigned for entry of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Following consideration of all relevant pleadings in this case, it is recommended that Hall's § 2255 motion be DENIED.
On June 22, 2011, Hall was indicted on one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Doc. 1, at 1-2.)1 Hall made his initial appearance in this Court on July 6, 2011 (see Doc. 5), was arraigned on the chargeon the same day (Doc. 6), and was ordered detained on July 14, 2011 (Doc. 9).
During the July 26, 2011 Probation Office Conference, which was attended by Hall, his retained attorney (James R. Harper, Jr.),2 Assistant United States Attorney Gina Vann and Probation Officer Vickie Orso, the participants, including petitioner, reviewed preliminary guideline calculations3 showing that although Hall's indictment specifically charged that he had illegally possessed 4 firearms, the fact that there were actually 11 firearms as well as drugs found at the time of Hall's arrest, were all factors that would be considered during sentencing according to Worksheet A of the report on probation office conference. (Doc. 11, at 2.) A copy of this worksheet was provided to Hall and his attorney evinced by the attachment of a copy of Worksheet D from this report to his initial motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. (Doc. 39, Ex. 1, at 30-32.) Worksheet D informs that it is generated based on the information contained in Worksheet A, which took into consideration the actual number of firearms and the discovery of drugs during Hall's arrest. (Doc. 11.) It is these preliminary guideline calculations that Hall alleges he reasonably believed would be applicable at sentencing according to information provided by Harper. (Doc. 40, at 10-12.) However, it should be noted that as early as July 26, 2011, Hall was in possession of all the information that was necessary to accurately calculate that his adjusted offense level would be 28 and hiscriminal history category would be VI. (Doc. 11, at 2-7.)4 Eight days after the Probation Office Conference, Hall, through Harper, notified this Court of his intent to plead guilty. (Doc. 12.)
(Id. at 2.) Secondly, he acknowledged that the penalties that could be imposed if he pleaded guilty included:
(Id. at 4) Third, he made clear that he understood that if the trial judge accepted his guilty plea an advisory sentence range could not be reasonably calculated until a pre-sentence investigation was completed.
The Court will impose the sentence in this case. The United States Sentencing Guidelines are advisory and do not bind the Court. The defendant has reviewed the application of the Guidelines with his attorney and understands that no one can predict with certainty what the sentencing range will be in this case until after a pre-sentence investigation has been completed and the Court has ruled on the results of that investigation. The defendant understands that at sentencing, the Court may not necessarily sentence the defendant in accordance with the Guidelines. The defendant understands that he will not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea if the advisory guideline range is higher than expected, or if the Court departs or varies from the advisory guideline range.
(Id. at 4-5 (emphasis added).) Fourth, in a separate factual resume attached to the plea agreement, Hall agreed that the facts contained in the resume were true and correct. (Id. at 3; see also Doc. 15, at 14-16 ().) A crucial fact contained therein was that he (Id. at 15.) Fifth, the plea agreement also contains a provision providing a Limited Waiver of Right to Appeal and Waiver of Collateral Attack:
(Doc. 15, at 11 (emphasis added).) Lastly, the plea agreement provides that "[t]his document is the complete statement of the agreement between the defendant and the United States and may not be altered unless done so in writing and signed by all the parties." (Id. at 12.)
Later that day, Hall appeared before the Honorable Callie V.S. Granade for his plea colloquy pursuant to Rule 11, Fed.R.Cr.P. (Doc. 16; see also Doc. 40 (transcript).) During the plea colloquy, the Court specifically asked Hall:
To continue reading
Request your trial