United States v. Aigbekaen
| Decision Date | 03 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | CRIM. JKB-15-0462 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RAYMOND AIGBEKAEN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Presently pending before the Court is Raymond Aigbekaen's Motion to Vacate Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 454) as supplemented by subsequent filings. (See ECF Nos 467, 480.) Aigbekaen has also filed a Motion for Bail Pending Disposition of his § 2255 Motion (ECF No. 540)-which is mooted by disposition of his § 2255 Motion[1]-and a Motion for Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927[2](ECF No. 555.) In addition to these Motions, Aigbekaen has filed numerous correspondences reiterating the claims made in his § 2255 Motion and occasionally, raising new arguments for the Court's consideration. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 460, 461, 463 471, 472.) Though the Court has fully considered these additional correspondences, it addresses them only to the extent that they raise arguments not already made in Aigbekaen's Motion and principal Supplements. For the following reasons, all of Aigbekaen's Motions will be DENIED.
I. Background and Prior Proceedings
On August 25, 2015, a grand jury in the District of Maryland indicted Aigbekaen on six Counts related the sex trafficking of a minor, “L.” (See ECF No I.)[3] After trial, a jury convicted Aigbekaen on all Counts, but found him not guilty of the more serious charge of “sex trafficking . by force, fraud or coercion” alleged in Count 3. (See ECF No. 189); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b) (). The Court sentenced Aigbekaen to 180 months' imprisonment on Counts 1, 3, and 5, to run concurrently with each other and imposed lesser sentences on the remaining Counts. (ECF No. 228.) Aigbekaen appealed his conviction and sentence. (ECF No. 234.)
On appeal, Aigbekaen's appellate counsel raised two primary issues for review: (1) “Did the lower court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress historical cell site information [‘CSLF] obtained without a warrant?” and (2) “Did the lower court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress the warrantless search of a computer and phone seized from Appellant during a border search?” Appellant's Brief at 13, United States v. Aigbekaen, No. 17-4109,(4th Cir. March 5, 2018), ECF No. 70 (hereinafter, “Appeal”). Aigbekaen also filed, pro se, at least three supplemental briefs. Appellant's Pro Se Brief, Appeal (4th Cir. July 2, 2018), ECF No. 97 (hereinafter “Pro Se Appellate Brief'); Appellant's Supp. Pro Se Br., Appeal (4th Cir. Aug. 20, 2018), ECF No. 120 (hereinafter “Pro Se Appellate Supplement”); Appellant's Supp. Pro Se Br., Appeal (4th Cir. Oct. 1, 2018), ECF No. 152. After considering these initial filings, the Court of Appeals entered an Order directing supplemental briefing “on the following issue: Did the warrantless non-routine border search, in which Defendant's laptop and cell phone were seized by customs agents and held for more than a week, necessitate a warrant?” Supp. Br. Order at 1, Appeal (4th Cir. Nov. 8, 2018), ECF No. 150.
After supplemental briefing, the Court of Appeals affirmed Aigbekaen's conviction by published opinion. See United States v. Aigbekaen, 943 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2019). In doing so, it principally focused on the parties' dispute related to the applicability of the border-search exception to the warrant requirement to the 2015 seizure of Aigbekaen's laptop and phone. Cf. Id. at 719 n.3 (). While the Court of Appeals concluded that the warrantless seizure and search of these devices was not justified by the border-search exception, it further held that the government's good-faith reliance on prior precedent permitting such searches precluded application of the . exclusionary rule to bar the evidence obtained therefrom. See id. at 723, 725. Given this, the Court of Appeals concluded that this Court did not err in denying the Motion to Suppress the fruits of this search (and other searches it precipitated). Id. at 726. In closing, the Court of Appeals also noted that “[i]n his pro se brief and supplemental briefs, Aigbekaen also raises a host of additional challenges to his conviction and sentence[]” and that after “examin[ing] Aigbekaen's contentions[,]” it found “no reversible error.” Id. at 725 n. 10. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied Motions by both parties seeking rehearing or rehearing en banc. Appeal (4th Cir. Feb. 24, 2020) (order denying rehearing), ECF No. 252.
In July 2019 (four months before the Court of Appeals' published opinion), Aigbekaen filed, jiro se, a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and a Rule 33 Motion for a New Trial in this Court. (See ECF Nos. 345, 346.) The Court summarily denied both Motions, noting with respect to the Rule 33 Motion that “[t]hese issues have largely been addressed previously [and there] is nothing in this motion, factually or legally, that warrants relief.” (ECF Nos. 347, 348.) Aigbekaen appealed these denials and the Court of Appeals remanded “to the district court for the limited purpose of entering an opinion and order enumerating each of Aigbekaen's claims and explaining why each such claim does not entitle Aigbekaen to relief.” (See ECF No. 365.) In accordance with this mandate, on August 11, 2020, this Court entered a Memorandum and Order elaborating on its reasons for denying Aigbekaen's Rule 33 Motion. (ECF No. 411.)
On January 27, 2021, Aigbekaen filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. (See ECF No. 453 at 1.), Concluding that “petitioner's challenges to his conviction [raised in that petition] are properly brought in a section 2255 motion, not a section 2241 motion[,]” the Connecticut District Court recharacterized Aigbekaen's filing as a Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and transferred it to this Court. See Ruling on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 4, 6-7, Aigbekaen v. United States, Civ. No. MPS-21-113 (D. Conn. May 12, 2021). On June 2, 2021, this Court directed the Government to respond to Aigbekaen's recharacterized § 2255 Motion within sixty days. (ECF No. 453.)
However, on July 15,2021, Aigbekaen filed a Motion to Amend his § 2255 Motion stating that his original Motion did “not contain the important 2255 issues which the defendant intended to bring before the court.” (ECF No. 467 at 1.) The Court directed the Government to respond to the procedural propriety of the Motion to Amend before its substantive response to Aigbekaen's reconstrued § 2255 Motion. (ECF No. 468.) In responding to the Motion to Amend, the Government explained that it “does not oppose the Defendant's motion to amend[,j” but stated that this Court should provide Aigbekaen with Castro warnings because the Connecticut District Court did not do so when it recharacterized Aigbekaen's initial Motion. (See ECF No. 473 at I);[4]see also Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 382 (2003) (). In addition to their responsive brief, the Government provided a draft Order that included Castro warnings. (See ECF No. 475.)
Apparently reading this draft Order as an Order of this Court, Aigbekaen responded with a further amendment to his § 2255 Motion, stating that (ECF No. 480 at 1.) Out of an abundance of caution, this Court issued an Order reiterating the Castro warnings, providing Aigbekaen with a further opportunity to withdraw his § 2255 Motion to “avoid subjecting subsequent § 2255 motions to the bar on ‘second or successive' motions” and setting in another briefing schedule if Aigbekaen opted to move forward with his § 2255 Motion as amended. (See ECF No. 486 at 3-4.) Aigbekaen subsequently submitted a correspondence to the Court confirming that he did not intend to withdraw his § 2255 Motion. (ECF No. 492.)
In addition to his two explicit amendments to his § 2255 Motion, on November 17, 2021, Aigbekaen filed a Motion styled as a Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 33. (ECF No. 488.)
The gravamen of this Motion was that Aigbekaen had newly obtained information about his mental illness-in the form of a psychological evaluation performed in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings-that supported his previously-rejected claim that he was mentally incompetent to stand trial. (See id. at 1-3; ECF No. 488-1.) Given the timing and substance of this Motion, however, the Court concluded that it was better characterized as a supplement to his pending § 2255 Motion and directed the Government to respond to it as such. (See ECF No. 494 at 3.)
The Government timely responded to these various filings on Januaiy 25, 2022, and opposed Aigbekaen's § 2255 Motion in its entirety. (See ECF No. 505.) Contemporaneous with its opposition, the Government filed a Motion to Compel seeking to compel an attorney affidavit from Joseph Balter, Esq., Aigbekaen's trial attorney regarding Aigbekaen's claim that Attorney Balter failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial