Stinson v. United States

• Decision Date: 20 December 2021
• Docket Number: 7:18-CR-75-D,7:21-CV-41-D
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: RICHARD STINSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

RICHARD STINSON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Nos. 7:18-CR-75-D, 7:21-CV-41-D

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division

December 20, 2021

ORDER

JAMES C. DEVER III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On March 9, 2021, Richard Stinson("Stinson"or ”petitioner”) moved pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his 192-month sentence and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 129, 129-1]. On April 19, 2021, the United States moved to dismiss Stinson's motion for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [D.E. 133] and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 134]. The same day, the court notified Stinson of the motion to dismiss, the consequences of failing to respond, and the response deadline [D.E. 13 5]. See Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) (per curiam). On May 11, 2021, Stinson responded in opposition to the United States' motion [D.E. 136]. As explained below, the court grants the government's motion to dismiss and dismisses Stinson's section 2255 motion.

I.

On July 23, 2018, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Stinson pleaded guilty to conspiracy with the intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin (count one), possession with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin (count three), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime (count five) [D.E. 1, 47, 48]. On May 21, 2019, the court held Stinson's sentencing

1

hearing [D.E. 105, 108]. At the hearing, the court thoroughly considered and denied Stinson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and motion for discovery. See Sentencing Tr. [D.E. 114] 3-19; see also [D.E. 79, 91, 98, 103]. The court also heard argument and denied Stinson credit for acceptance of responsibility. See Sentencing Tr. at 19-24. After denying Stinson credit for acceptance of responsibility, the court calculated Stinson's offense level to be 30, his criminal history category to be m and his advisory guideline range to be 121 to 151 months' imprisonment on counts one and three and 60 months' consecutive imprisonment on count five. See Id. at 24. After thoroughly considering the arguments of counsel and all relevant factors under 18U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court sentenced Stinson to 132 months' imprisonment on counts one and three and 60 months' consecutive imprisonment on count five for a total term of imprisonment of 192 months. See Id. at 38-44; [D.E. 108] 3. Stinson appealed. See [D.E. 110]. On July 31, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Stinson's convictions and sentence. See United States v Stinson, 813 Fed.Appx. 916 (4th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (unpublished).

On March 9, 2021, Stinson moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and raised three arguments: (1) that counsel allegedly failed to argue at sentencing that Stinson's guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because Stinson was misinformed of the maximum penalties he faced, (2) that counsel allegedly failed to argue that an ambiguity in Stinson's plea agreement required the court to give Stinson credit for acceptance of responsibility, and (3) that the government allegedly breached Stinson's plea agreement and thereby denied hi™ due process. See [D.E. 129-1] 4. The United States moves to dismiss Stinson's motion under Rule 12(b)(6). See [D.E. 133]. Stinson opposes the motion. See [D.E. 136].

II.

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for "failure

2

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" tests a complaint's legal and factual sufficiency. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-63, 570 (2007): Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals. 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd, 566 U.S. 30 (2012); Giarratano v Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008); accord Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (per curiam). In considering a motion to dismiss, a court need not accept a complaint's legal conclusions. See, e.g., Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 678. Similarly, a court "need not accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Giarratano, 521 F.3d at 302 (quotation omitted); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-79. Moreover, a court may take judicial notice of public records without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment See, e.g.. Fed.R.Evid. 201(d); Tellabs. Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rts., Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). In reviewing a section 2255 motion, the court is not limited to the motion itself. The court may consider "the files and records of the case." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); see United States v. McGill. 11 F.3d 223, 225 (1 st Cir. 1993). Likewise, a court may rely on its own familiarity with the case. See. e.g., Blackledee v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 n.4 (1977); United States v. Dyess, 730 F.3d 354, 359-60 (4th Cir. 2013).

The "Sixth Amendment entitles criminal defendants to the effective assistance of counsel-that is, representation that does not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness in light of prevailing professional norms." Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4, 7 (2009) (per curiam) (quotations omitted). The Sixth Amendment right to counsel extends to all critical stages of a criminal proceeding, including plea negotiations, trial, sentencing, and appeal. See, e.g., Lee v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1958, 1964-65 (2017); Lafler v. Cooper., 566 U.S....