United States v. Carlos
| Decision Date | 30 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Action No. 7:11-cr-00029 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SHAHEEM SHABREE CARLOS, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 1, 2019, defendant Shaheem Shabree Carlos filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 269. The government filed a motion to dismiss Carlos' petition on August 2, 2019, ECF No. 279, to which Carlos responded on November 18, 2019. For the reasons stated below, the court will GRANT the government's motion and DISMISS Carlos' petition.
In March 2011, law enforcement arranged for a confidential informant to make multiple controlled purchases of heroin from an individual at an address in Vinton, Virginia.1 Several officers, including Detective A. S. Ashby of the Roanoke City Police Department and Officer Valley, a Task Force Officer (TFO) with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), conducted surveillance of these controlled buys and of the residence. ECF No. 269 at 4.
On April 5, 2011, TFO Valley witnessed several cars come and go from the residence. Law enforcement officers stopped four of those vehicles and found heroin in each of them. One of the drivers admitted to purchasing the heroin from an individual at the residence. Based on this information, Detective Ashby obtained a search warrant for the residence and any person found inside. Id.; Incident Rep't, ECF No. 279-3 at 4.
Upon executing the search warrant, officers found Carlos and two other individuals inside the house. Carlos had "a large sum of currency and a bundle of heroin" in his pocket. Incident Rep't, ECF No. 279-3 at 4. Officers also found substantial amounts of cash and heroin and a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol. Id. at 4-5. TFO Craig Frye participated in the search of the residence and questioned Carlos with Detective Ashby. Id. at 4-7.
According to the Incident Report prepared by Ashby, he took Carlos upstairs and read him his Miranda rights.2 Carlos said he had been living at the house for approximately three weeks, identified his bedroom, and told officers that the gun and all the drugs in the house were his. Id. at 5. He estimated that he had approximately twenty bricks of heroin in his room and two bricks in the kitchen cabinet. Carlos told Ashby that he purchased the gun for protection after he was involved in a fight at a local bar the year before. Id. Officer Frye then asked Carlos if he had the gun for protection because he had so much heroin and was afraid of getting robbed. Ashby stated in the report, "To clarify, Detective Fry (sic) asked [Carlos] if he had the gun for protection because he had so much drugs and was afraid of getting robbed and [Carlos] said that was the case." Id.
The government filed a criminal complaint against Carlos and on May 26, 2011, Carlos was charged in a superseding indictment with possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count One); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Two); conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846 (Count Three); and distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count Thirteen). ECF No. 21 at 1-2, 5.
On January 4, 2012, Carlos entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to Counts Two and Three of the superseding indictment. Plea Agreement, ECF No. 115-1 at 1-2. The remaining counts would be dismissed at sentencing. Id. at 2. He acknowledged that he would be held responsible for more than 100 but less than 400 grams of heroin and also acknowledged that he might be treated as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Id. at 3-4. He pled guilty the same day. ECF Nos. 113, 114.
Based on the drug weight to which Carlos stipulated, his criminal history category, his acceptance of responsibility, the 60-month consecutive sentence required for the firearm charge, and his status as a career offender, the presentence investigation report (PSR) found that his sentencing guideline range was 262 to 327 months. PSR, ECF No. 148 at 15-16. The government filed a motion for substantial assistance, ECF No. 143, which the court granted. On May 30, 2012, the court imposed a sentence of 154 months—94 months and 60 months on the conspiracy and firearm charges, respectively. ECF No. 146.
Carlos' § 2255 motion is based on the participation of Officer Craig Frye in the investigation and prosecution of his case. In April 2018, nearly six years after Carlos was sentenced, the government filed a motion seeking disclosure of grand jury materials and potential impeachment materials regarding Officer Frye. The court granted the motion on May 16, 2018. ECF No. 250. Carlos' motion recounts much of the information disclosed about Officer Frye, as does the government's motion to dismiss. The complaints about Officer Frye included concerns over not following proper procedures and protocols for handling informants and drug information, making disrespectful and offensive comments about women and minority groups, making false statements in court proceedings, and not reporting expunged arrest and charge information. Based on this claimed misconduct, a Roanoke County Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney decided not to sponsor Frye's testimony in any further cases unless the testimony was corroborated by other evidence. Also, the United States Attorney determined that Frye would no longer be permitted to testify as a government witness. None of the undisclosed claimed misconduct was related to Carlos' case.
Given the undisclosed claims of misconduct about Officer Frye, Carlos argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty to the firearm charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He claims that Frye played a critical role in securing that charge against him and asserts that he would not have pled guilty had he known about the information bearing on Officer Frye's credibility. Carlos asserts that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Officer Frye's involvement in his case was material to his decision to plead guilty.
To state a viable claim for relief under § 2255, a petitioner must prove: (1) that his sentence was "imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States;" (2) that "the court was without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence;" or (3) that "the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). If a petition alleges a sentencing error that is neither constitutional nor jurisdictional, "a district court lacks authority to review it unless it amounts to a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice." United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931, 936 (4th Cir.) (quoting Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346 (1974)). A petitioner collaterally attacking his conviction or sentence via a § 2255 petition bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of evidence that he is entitled to relief. White v. United States, 352 F.Supp.2d 684, 687 (E.D. Va. 2004) ().
"The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions, or the [§ 2255 Rules], may be applied to" § 2255 proceedings. Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, Rule 12. The court may dismiss a § 2255 motion without a hearing when the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings conclusively show that the moving party is not entitled to relief. United States v. Renrick, No. 6:11-CR-00338-JMC-16, 2019 WL 4140934, at *2 (D.S.C. Aug. 30, 2019) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b)).
"When the district court denies § 2255 relief without an evidentiary hearing, the nature of the court's ruling is akin to a ruling on a motion for summary judgment." United States v.Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 267 (4th Cir. 2007). The court does not weigh the evidence but reviews the facts in the light most favorable to the petitioner and determines whether there is a genuine issue of fact. Lewis v. United States, No. 4:12-CR-00068-FL-2, 2015 WL 2401514, at *3 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). "Permissible inferences must still be within the range of reasonable probability, ... and it is the duty of the court to [grant summary judgment] when the necessary inference is so tenuous that it rests merely upon speculation and conjecture." Id. (citing Lovelace v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 681 F.2d 230, 241 (4th Cir. 1982) (quotations omitted)).
"[A] guilty plea is a grave and solemn act to be accepted only with care and discernment." Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970). Because guilty pleas waive the constitutional right to a trial, they "not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences." Id. "The longstanding test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is 'whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.'" Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56 (1985) (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970)). Thus, to withdraw a guilty plea as involuntary, a defendant must show "(1) 'some egregiously impermissible conduct (say, threats, blatant misrepresentations, or untoward blandishments by government agents)...
To continue reading
Request your trial