Mubang v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Case No. DKC 03-0539,Civil Action No. DKC 06-1838 |
| Parties | THERESA S. MUBANG v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this involuntary servitude case is the motion of Petitioner Theresa Mubang to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 95), along with several related motions (ECF Nos. 96, 99, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 117, 118). The issues are briefed and the court now rules. For the reasons that follow, Mubang's three motions to supplement the record will be granted, her motion to submit unpublished authorities will be granted, and her motion to submit corrected filings will be granted. All other pending motions, including the motions for relief under Section 2255, will be denied.
This case stems from Petitioner Theresa Mubang's treatment of a young illegal alien from Cameroon named Evelyn Chumbow. Mubang brought Chumbow to the United States, ostensibly toreceive an education. Rather than sending Chumbow to school, however, Mubang instead held Chumbow in servitude for more than two years, forcing her to cook, clean, and care for Mubang's children without compensation. At the same time, Mubang isolated Chumbow from the outside world while subjecting her to substantial physical and mental abuse. Mubang's treatment of Chumbow was apparently part of a pattern of conduct spanning several years and involving multiple girls from Cameroon.
Various witnesses at trial provided testimony establishing the oppressive coercion that Mubang used to keep Chumbow working in her employ, but perhaps the most powerful testimony came from Chumbow herself. Chumbow told the jury how Mubang forced her to work from the early morning hours until very late at night, maintaining the household, cooking, and taking care of Mubang's children.1 When she was allowed to sleep, she slept on the floor.
According to Chumbow, when she did not complete her assigned tasks to Mubang's satisfaction, the consequences were severe: Mubang would beat her with the heel of a shoe, pull her hair, and punish her with other physical abuse on roughly a weekly basis. Other times, Mubang would use a length of white plastic television cable to whip Chumbow's hands and back until she bled. Chumbow received one beating with the cable, for instance, when she changed the television channel while Mubang's child was watching it. On some occasions, Mubang would use a metal broom, striking Chumbow with it over and over until she grew exhausted. Yet another time, Mubang beat Chumbow so much she bled on Mubang's carpet; Mubang angrily instructed Chumbow to "clean [her] stinking blood on [her] carpet." When Chumbow did not clean up the blood well enough, Mubang beat her again. The Government showed pictures of the resulting scars at trial, and Chumbow testified about some head wounds. Still, some abuse left no mark. When Mubang was too tired to beat Chumbow, for example, she made her stand next to Mubang's bed throughout the night - without support - as an exhausting punishment.
Chantal Adembuh, Chumbow's cousin and another girl who was sent from Cameroon to live with Mubang, corroborated many of the acts described by Chumbow. Adembuh watched as Chumbow cooked, cleaned, vacuumed, and took care of the children, all without receiving payment, schooling, or clothing. She saw how Chumbow acted afraid around Mubang, and how Mubang would yell at Chumbow when the "chores" were not done correctly.2 Sometimes, she also saw the physical abuse: she witnessed as Mubang beat Chumbow with the white cable, saw Mubang pull Chumbow's ears, and watched as Mubang would slap Chumbow in the face. Adembuh, who had known Chumbow in Cameroon, also noticed the new scars that had appeared on Chumbow's body since her arrival in the United States.3
Other testimony provided further support for the claims of abuse lodged against Mubang. Vivian Massa, for instance, testified that she saw Mubang strike Chumbow when she did not do her work well. In one such instance, Massa watched as Mubangdragged Chumbow into another room, where she proceeded to beat Chumbow with a shoe.
The jury also heard testimony from Emelda Angu. In December 1998, Chumbow and Adembuh decided to run away from Mubang's home. They contacted Angu, a relative of Chumbow, who testified that she picked them up from Mubang's residence and took them to her house to stay with her. Angu stated that, at the time she picked the two girls up, she noticed that Chumbow had an oozing head wound and some other scars. Angu soon learned where the wounds came from, as Chumbow began telling her stories of her abuse at Mubang's hands. Mubang told Angu how Mubang beat her with the heel of a shoe for under-seasoning the food she cooked. Angu learned how Mubang would pull Chumbow's hair so hard that she would yank clumps of hair from Chumbow's head. And she heard how Chumbow received beatings with a cable or a broom. Angu testified about those statements at trial.
Mubang offered her own witnesses who did not see her strike Chumbow or see any physical injuries. Witnesses such as Dr. John Mubang and Winifred Tawa suggested that Chumbow was not forced to work in any manner different from any other child. Several Government witnesses, including Gwanaji, Ndikum, Monikang, and Elizabeth Johnson, also conceded that they had never seen injuries or any beatings. The defense heavilyemphasized that Chumbow did not seek medical treatment for her injuries and did not approach the authorities for almost five years. Nevertheless, Mubang's evidence ultimately proved unpersuasive.
In a superseding indictment dated September 27, 2004, a grand jury charged Mubang with one count of holding a juvenile to a term of involuntary servitude and one count of harboring a juvenile alien for financial gain. On November 17, 2004, a jury convicted Mubang of both counts of the indictment. Sometime between the verdict and sentencing, Mubang fled the country and returned to her native Cameroon. This court then issued a bench warrant for her arrest. A few months later, on February 28, 2005, Mubang was sentenced in absentia to concurrent terms of 210 months of imprisonment (on count one) and 120 months of imprisonment (on count two), along with three years of supervised release. Judgment was entered on March 1, and counsel for Mubang noted an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit two days later.
Mubang's counsel moved to stay the appeal because Mubang was a fugitive on April 6, 2005. The Government responded in opposition and moved to dismiss the appeal on April 15. On April 20, 2005, the Fourth Circuit denied the motion to stay anddismissed the appeal, but granted Mubang leave to move to file an appeal, with good cause shown, if Mubang surrendered herself to federal custody within 30 days. Mubang did not do so. Instead, she was apprehended in Cameroon on May 26, 2005 and returned to the United States two days later. Although counsel moved to reinstate the appeal on October 7, 2005, the court denied that motion on November 21, 2005.
Counsel for Mubang, Peter Goldman, filed a Section 2255 petition on her behalf on July 19, 2006 ("the July 19 Petition"). (ECF No. 95). That motion asserts five grounds for relief: (1) her conviction on count one was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the Government did not timely disclose exculpatory evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); (3) she was deprived of her jury trial right because the jury delivered a verdict in "less than two hours"; (4) certain testimony from three other women who lived with Mubang was improperly admitted; and (5) the evidence was insufficient to establish coercion, a required element under count one.
Mubang then submitted a "pro se motion to amend" her Section 2555 petition, which she states she delivered to prisonauthorities on July 20, 2006 ("the July 20 Amendment").4 (ECF No. 96). The court received and docketed the motion on July 24, 2006. In the proposed amendment, she raises several new claims, including actual innocence,5 additional Brady violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and an "absence of federal jurisdiction."
The Government opposed both of Mubang's motions on September 28, 2006. (ECF No. 101). It limited its response, however, to a number of procedural issues that it believes bar Mubang's claim. Mubang then filed a reply to this "procedural objection" on November 27, 2006. (ECF No. 106).
After Mubang filed her initial Section 2255 motion, several additional motions from her followed: a motion for clarification of the filing date of her amended motion, three motions for leave to supplement the record, a motion to submit unpublished authorities, a motion for a summary order for an evidentiary hearing, and a motion for release from custody. The Governmentresponded only to the first motion to supplement the record and the motion to submit unpublished authorities, indicating that it did not oppose. (ECF No. 109). Because these motions seek to define the record and question what procedure should be used to resolve Mubang's motion to vacate, they are appropriately decided first.
Mubang has filed three motions for leave to supplement the record with evidence that she believes buttresses certain of her claims. (ECF Nos. 107, 114, 117). The Government did not file any opposition. Rule 7(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Motions allows a court to direct the parties to "expand the record by submitting additional materials relating to the motion." The rule is not designed to allow a petitioner to add additional grounds for relief; rather, "Rule 7 is akin to an evidentiary rule rather than a rule allowing a petitioner to amend her Motion." Thrasher v. United States, 721 F.Supp.2d 480, 484 n.10 (E.D.Va. 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial