United States v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 21 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 17-2778 (CKK),Criminal No. 11-00129-01 (CKK) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GEZO GEONG EDWARDS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Presently before the Court is pro se Defendant Gezo Geong Edwards' Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Motion"). Defendant, Gezo Geong Edwards ("Mr. Edwards" or "Defendant") requests that this Court vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence based upon his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr. Edwards also includes a "Motion for Discovery" within his motion, seeking access to a code or program to open files and documents given to him by his former counsel.1 Upon a searching review of the parties' submissions, the relevant authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court finds that Mr. Edwards is not entitled to the requested relief.2 Accordingly, the Court shall DENY Mr. Edwards' Motionto Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence.
The facts in this case may be summarized as follows: Mr. Edwards was a member of a wholesale cocaine trafficking organization operating in the District of Columbia (the "District") metropolitan area from January 2009 through April 26, 2011, when he was arrested as a result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. The Government obtained evidence of Mr. Edwards' participation in the organization through various methods, including pen registers, arranged undercover drug buys, judicially-authorized wiretaps, physical surveillance, and surveillance videos. Mr. Edwards and his co-conspirators acquired large quantities of cocaine in California, shipped it to the District, and distributed it to mid-level and street-level dealers. Mr. Edwards was responsible for contacting suppliers in California, ensuring that the multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine were shipped from California to the District, and even cutting and processing the cocaine. Probation Pre-Sentence Investigation Report at 7-11, ECF No. 716. Mr. Edwards was initially represented by Mr. Harry Tun,3 but was later represented by Mr. A. Eduardo Balarezo during his pretrial and trial proceedings.
In a Superseding Indictment filed on June 16, 2011, Mr. Edwards was charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii), 846, and two counts of using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1). Redacted Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 440. The Superseding Indictment also included asset forfeiture provisions. Id. The two counts of using, carrying and possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense were consolidated into one count before the case went to the jury.
On November 18, 2011, the Government filed the first of two bills of particulars to supplement the forfeiture allegations in the superseding indictment. First Bill of Particulars for Forfeiture, ECF No. 131. The Government described items subject to forfeiture as falling into four categories: money judgment, real property, United States currency, and personal property. Id. at 1-3. On December 13, 2011, the Government filed its second bill of particulars. Second Bill of Particulars for Forfeiture, ECF No. 136. Stemming from both bills of particulars, and with regard to Mr. Edwards, the Government requested a money judgment equal to the value of any and all property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the offenses charged, and listed the following assets as subject to forfeiture: $360,009.00 in U.S. currency; $6,380.00 in U.S. currency; $16,538.60 held at TD Bank NA, in the name of Lunar Funding Group, LLC; $6,064.90 held at TD Bank NA, in the name of The Gueong Edwards Family Trust4; one platinum ladies diamond engagement ring; and one ladies Rolex President, oyster perpetual datejust watch.
On February 22, 2012, Mr. Edwards, through counsel, filed a Motion for Release of Funds, ECF No. 192, alleging that without access to the funds the Government had seized from him, he could not retain counsel of his choice. Mr. Edwards sought a hearing to determine the validity ofthe Government's seizure of assets as he wanted to use those assets to pay a retainer fee that he and Mr. Balarezo agreed upon should the case proceed to trial. Id. The Government filed a Memorandum in Opposition, ECF No. 194, arguing that Mr. Edwards did not make a threshold showing that he lacked sufficient assets to pay Mr. Balarezo. The Court agreed and denied Mr. Edwards' request without prejudice. Order (Feb. 29, 2012), ECF No. 196.
Mr. Edwards also filed pretrial suppression motions, two counseled and one pro se, contesting the authorization of the Government's use of wiretaps throughout the investigation. This Court denied each of those motions. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, 889 F. Supp. 2d 1, 18 (D.D.C. 2012); id. at 23-29; United States v. Edwards, 904 F. Supp. 2d 7, 9-11 (D.D.C. 2012).
During its case-in-chief, the Government presented an expert witness and a confidential informant to link Mr. Edwards to the cocaine sold by Mr. Edwards and his co-conspirators. The expert witness testified as to the purity of the cocaine, and the confidential informant ("CI") testified as to the controlled drug buys. The defense did not present any expert testimony refuting the Government's claims about the origin of the cocaine nor any testimony about the common practices drug dealers use to conceal drugs from detection. Instead, Mr. Edwards' defense at trial questioned whether Mr. Edwards and his co-conspirators entered into an agreement, to prove conspiracy, and cast doubt on the character of the Government's witnesses who testified as to the controlled drug buys. See Trial Transcript ("Tr."). 14, 16-33, Nov. 15, 2012 P.M. Session, ECF No. 713.
On November 20, 2012, following a month-long jury trial, the jury found Mr. Edwards guilty on the charge of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, and acquitted him of the charge of using, carrying, and possessing a firearm. Verdict Forms, ECF Nos. 651/653. Following a separate forfeiture hearing, the jury found thatthe Government proved that the following items constituted or were derived from proceeds that Mr. Edwards had obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the conspiracy charged in count one of Superseding Indictment: $360,009.00 in U.S. currency; $16,538.60 held at TD Bank NA, in the name of Lunar Funding Group, LLC; $6,064.90 held at TD Bank NA, in the name of The Gueong Edwards Family Trust; and one ladies Rolex President, oyster perpetual datejust watch. Partial Forfeiture Verdict Form, ECF No. 595; Final Forfeiture Verdict Form, ECF No. 597. The jury found that the Government did not prove that $6,380.00 in U.S. Currency was subject to forfeiture. Partial Forfeiture Verdict Form; ECF No. 595. The jury was unable to reach a decision as to the platinum ladies diamond engagement ring. Final Forfeiture Verdict Form; ECF No. 597.
On January 7, 2013, the Government filed a Notice of Forfeiture, ECF No. 670, seeking to forfeit the ring and the $6,380.00 in U.S. currency as substitute assets pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p). It later filed a Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, ECF No. 677, requesting forfeiture of all assets. Mr. Edwards, through counsel, opposed the Government's motion, arguing that it failed to establish any nexus between the ring and the charged offense. Def.'s Opp'n to Gov't's Mot. For Preliminary Order of Forfeiture at 3, ECF No. 695. The Government filed a Second Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, ECF No. 771, seeking discovery authority to identify and locate assets subject to forfeiture, or substitute assets for such property. This Court granted the Government's Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture. Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, ECF No. 779. The Court entered a Final Order of Forfeiture, ECF No. 867, on February 27, 2014, the day that Mr. Edwards had his sentencing.
The Court sentenced Mr. Edwards to life imprisonment and a ten-year term of supervised release. Judgment, ECF No. 876. Mr. Edwards filed a timely notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which affirmed his conviction. United Statesv. Williams, 827 F.3d 1134, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert denied sub nom. Edwards v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 706 (2017). The Government moved subsequently to amend the Final Order of Forfeiture, ECF No. 947. Mr. Edwards, then represented by Mr. David B. Smith, filed his Response to the Government's motion, ECF No. 952. The Court entered an Order of Forfeiture for Substitute Assets, ECF No. 957, granting the Government's motion to amend.
Mr. Edwards filed the present Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 975. Prior to filing the instant Motion, Mr. Edwards did not file any previous petitions, applications, or motions with respect to the judgment after his direct appeal. Mr. Edwards' Motion is premised on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel related to his trial counsel, Mr. Balarezo. Mr. Edwards' claims that Mr. Balarezo was constitutionally ineffective fall into six general categories: (1) Mr. Balarezo's handling of the criminal forfeiture aspect of the case both pre-trial and post-trial; (2) Mr. Balarezo's alleged actual conflict of interest; (3) Mr. Balarezo's failure to call an expert witness and to conduct independent testing to rebut the Government's claims regarding the source of the cocaine; (4) Mr. Balarezo's failure to accurately and adequately argue that the evidence obtained from the wiretaps should have been suppressed; (5) Mr. Balarezo's failure to challenge the sufficiency...
To continue reading
Request your trial