United States v. 1. Matthew Holt
Decision Date | 14 January 2019 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 17-cv-1901-WJM,Criminal Case No. 15-cr-245-WJM |
Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 1. MATTHEW HOLT, Defendant-Movant. |
Court | United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado |
The Court sentenced Defendant Matthew Holt ("Holt") to 55 years in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons based on his plea of guilty to three counts of producing child pornography. Currently before the Court is Holt's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. (ECF No. 110.) The Court referred this motion to U.S. Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang for a recommended disposition. (See ECF Nos. 111, 125.) After resolving requests for discovery and similar matters,1 Judge Wang issued her recommendation on July 9, 2018, recommending that Holt's motion be denied in all respects. ("Recommendation," ECF No. 145.) Holt filed a timely objection. (ECF No. 148.) The Government filed a response to that objection. (ECF No. 149.) Holt then filed a motion to strike the Government's response (ECF No. 152), which is also currently before the Court. TheGovernment filed no response to the motion to strike.
For the reasons explained below, the Court agrees with Judge Wang that Holt's motion fails in all respects, although the Court's reasoning is at times somewhat different than Judge Wang's. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Recommendation in full, as modified herein, and deny Holt's motion. The Court will deny Holt's motion to strike as moot.
Holt was arrested on May 18, 2015, under a criminal complaint charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), which prohibits production of child pornography.2 (ECF Nos. 1, 7.) The eventual indictment contained twenty-one counts, thirteen of which were directed at Holt. (See ECF No. 13.) Twelve of those thirteen counts charged violations of § 2251(a). The remaining count charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), which prohibits distribution of child pornography.
Holt, through counsel, filed a notice of disposition on September 15, 2015. (ECF No. 38.) He chose to accept a plea agreement that, in its final form, was an agreement to dismiss the indictment and to charge Holt through a superseding information that alleged three counts of violating § 2251(a)—to which he would plead guilty. (See ECF No. 62 at 1-5.) The Government also agreed not to pursue charges based on any other violations then known to it. (Id. at 5.)
After numerous continuances for reasons no longer important, the Court held a change-of-plea hearing on February 23, 2016. (ECF No. 61.) At that hearing, theundersigned addressed Holt as follows:
(ECF No. 115 at 4-5.) The undersigned then announced, "Based on the statements of the defendant and my observations, I find that he is competent to proceed with this hearing." (Id. at 5.)
The undersigned then continued his colloquy with Holt:
(Id. at 6-8.)
The undersigned then confirmed Holt's willingness to give up the constitutional rights he would enjoy by going to trial, his understanding of the potential maximum sentence, and similar matters. (Id. at 9-16.) Following Holt's affirmative responses, the undersigned continued:
(Id. at 17.) The undersigned then made findings on the record consistent with Holt's answers, and accepted his guilty plea. (Id. at 19-21.)
Holt's sentencing hearing took place on August 17, 2016. (ECF No. 99.) The Court had discretion to sentence Holt to up to 30 years' imprisonment for each of the three counts of the superseding information, totaling 90 years. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e). The Court sentenced Holt to 220 months' imprisonment per count, to run consecutively, for a total of 660 months (55 years). (ECF No. 101.)
On August 4, 2017, Holt filed the § 2255 motion currently at issue. (ECF No. 110.)
"A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, thecourt shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.
Id. § 2255(b).3 But the requirement for "a prompt hearing" does not mandate an evidentiary hearing. Rather, Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings states that it is the Court's role, after concluding that the motion merits a response from the Government, to evaluate the need for an evidentiary hearing:
If the motion is not dismissed [under Rule 4 of the same rules, which implements § 2255(b)], the judge must review the [Government's] answer, any transcripts and records of prior proceedings [cited by the parties], and any materials submitted under Rule 7 [ ] to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.
"[The] decision [whether to hold an evidentiary hearing] turns on whether such a hearing could enable the movant to prove the motion's factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the movant to relief." United States v. Barrett, 797 F.3d 1207, 1224 (10th Cir. 2015) ( ).
District courts are entitled to some latitude with regard to evidentiary hearings, and the standard is higher than notice pleading. District courts are not required to hold evidentiary hearings in collateral attacks without a firm idea of what the testimony will encompass and how it will support a movant's claim.
United States v. Cervini, 379 F.3d 987, 994 (10th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
A district judge may refer "applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses" to a magistrate judge for "proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of [such applications]." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). "Within fourteen days after being served with [the magistrate judge's proposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial