United States v. Estey

• Decision Date: 07 April 2023
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL ACTION 3:17-CR-170-CHB-LLK-3
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ERIC R. ESTEY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ERIC R. ESTEY, Defendant.

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 3:17-CR-170-CHB-LLK-3

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

April 7, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

CLARIA HORN BOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant/Movant Eric Estey's Objections, [R. 639], to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), [R. 633], which recommends denial of Estey's original and amended motions to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [R. 613 (Original Motion); R. 617 (Amended Motion)]. Also before the Court is Estey's Motion for a Stay Pending Supreme Court's Decision (“Motion for Stay”), [R. 643]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will overrule Estey's objections and, as supplemented by this Order, adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court. The Court will also deny his Motion for Stay.

I.

In December 2017, Estey and ten others were indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846. [R. 1 (Indictment)]; see also [R. 147 (Superseding Indictment)]. In November 2019, Estey reached a written agreement with the government to plead guilty to the sole count in the Superseding Indictment charging him with that offense. [R. 307 (Plea Agreement)]. As part of the agreement Estey acknowledged that he “will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charges.” Id. at 1. The binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement expressly provided that “at the time of sentencing, the United States and the Defendant, Mr. Estey will . . . agree that a sentence of 180 months' imprisonment is the appropriate disposition of the case.” Id. at 4. Estey also broadly waived his right to directly appeal or collaterally attack his conviction or the agreed-upon 180-month sentence:

Unless based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct, the Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right (a) to directly appeal his conviction and the resulting sentence pursuant to Fed. R App. P. 4(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and (b) to contest or collaterally attack his conviction and the resulting sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or otherwise. Defendant specifically waives on appeal or in a collateral attack any argument that (1) the statutes to which the defendant is pleading guilty are unconstitutional and (2) the admitted conduct does not fall within the scope of the statutes.

[R. 307, p. 5]. Finally, the plea agreement concluded with what is known as an “integration clause,” where the parties agreed that:

This document and the supplemental plea agreement state the complete and only Plea Agreements between the United States Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky and defendant in this case, and are binding only on the parties to this Agreement, supersedes all prior understandings, if any, whether written or oral, and cannot be modified other than in writing that are signed by all parties or on the record in Court. No other promises or inducements have been or will be made to defendant in connection with this case, nor have any predictions or threats been made in connection with this plea.

[R. 307, pp. 5-6].

The Court held a change of plea hearing on November 18, 2019. See generally [R. 564 (Transcript of Hearing)]. During that hearing, Estey confirmed to the Court that he understood the charges against him and the rights he would be waiving by pleading guilty. Id. at 8-14. The Court also confirmed that Estey understood that, under the plea agreement, the parties agreed to a 180-month sentence, which was binding upon the Court if the agreement was accepted. Id. at 18-19.

Finally, Estey specifically acknowledged that he was waiving his rights to appeal and collaterally attack his conviction and sentence. Id. at 15-19.

The Court held a sentencing hearing on October 29, 2020. [R. 513]. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court imposed the agreed-upon sentence of 180 months imprisonment to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. [R. 514 (Judgment); R. 530 (Sentencing Transcript)]. Estey appealed, but he later voluntarily dismissed the appeal in March 2021. [R. 519; R. 572].

On September 20, 2021, Estey filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on a single ground. [R. 613]. With the Court's permission, Estey later filed an amended petition asserting eight claims for relief. [R. 617]. The Court referred Estey's motion to United States Magistrate Judge Lanny King to prepare a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [R. 619]. The parties engaged in extended briefing. See [R. 622 (Response); R. 627 (Reply); R. 631 (Order granting leave to file Sur-Reply); R. 632 (Sur-Reply); R. 634 (Response to Sur-Reply)^[1]. On November 17, 2022, Magistrate Judge King issued his R&R, in which he recommends that Estey's § 2255 motion be denied and that the Court decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”). [R. 633].

The Court later denied Estey's § 2255 motion when he did not file any objections to the R&R. [R. 635; R. 636]. However, Estey promptly sought relief from the Court's Judgment, stating that he never received the Magistrate Judge's R&R. [R. 637]. The Court granted Estey's request and allowed him time to file objections to the R&R. See [R. 638]. Estey filed a timely Objection, [R. 639], as well as an untimely and unsigned document he titled “Additional Evidence,” [R.640]. The government has filed its response, [R. 641], to which Estey has replied. [R. 642]. The matter is therefore fully briefed and ripe for decision.

II.

Estey's amended § 2255 motion, [R. 617], sets forth eight claims. These include, recited verbatim from his motion:

Ground One: Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction ....

The U.S. Government had no jurisdiction to prosecute Mr Estey. Mr. Estey did not violate any federal law within U.S. territory or other U.S. property belonging to the United States. The U.S. Government shows no evidence that this crime was committed within its jurisdiction, nor does it show any powers granted to them by the U.S. Constitution to usurp that authority from the states' jurisdiction without Due Process....

Ground Two: Illegal search and seizure ....

U.S. Government illegally gathered evidence and utilized this illegally obtained evidence to prosecute Mr. Estey. This investigation also utilized illegal tactics to obtain such evidence such as warrants signed by officials of the court that had no jurisdiction within the jurisdiction Mr. Estey was prosecuted ....

Ground Three: Investigatory powers malfeasance ....

U.S. Government knowingly presented evidence not founded on clear and convincing standards. U.S. Government knowingly fabricated amounts of money for fabricated purposes (ipse dixit). U.S. Government knowingly fabricated drug amounts for purposes of Sentencing Guidelines as opposed to alleged factual drug amounts for prosecuting purposes alone ....

Ground Four: Prosecutorial Misconduct ....

Prosecutor knowingly received evidence from and sought after evidence they knew to be fabricated for purposes to illegally prosecute, detain and send for harsher Sentencing Guidelines against Mr. Estey. Prosecutor knowingly provided information to a grand jury for indictment without a grand jury array provided to Mr. Estey. Prosecutor did not provide an examining trial. The prosecutor violated separation of powers by holding the grand jury records. The prosecutor did not receive a delegation of authority to convene a grand jury. No quorum exists on record (the docket sheet) as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 6. No evidence exists on the record (the docket sheet) that the indictment was presented in “open court” (judge, prosecutor, defendant, and transcriber). Prosecutor knowingly failed to add stipulations into plea agreement as promised nor took opportunity to make court aware of the promise made to Mr. Estey in reference to questionable drug amounts. Prosecutor knowingly used questionable and fabricated drug amounts to ensure that the court's ‘hands would be tied' in fairly sentencing Mr. Estey....

Ground [Five]: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Mr. Estey's attorney knowingly failed to interview vital witnesses that would have proven vital information favorable to Mr. Estey's defense.

Mr. Estey's attorney knowingly failed to object to and/or suppress evidence such as but not limited to fabricated cash amounts, fabricated drug amounts, etc.

Mr. Estey's attorney knowingly failed to argue for the “safety valve” statute as Mr. Estey pleaded with him to do.

Mr. Estey's attorney knowingly failed to prepare a true defense as priority but rather sought to “make a deal.”

Ground [Six]: Denial of Discovery

The U.S. Government did violate Mr. Estey's rights by not allowing him to receive or view evidence that would have allowed him to prepare a proper defense. And that his attorney did not demand this to help Mr. Estey in this endeavor to defend his innocence. Therefore, denying Mr. Estey of rights within the Constitution and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.”

Ground [Seven]

That Mr. Estey's offense level was raised due to unethical practices by the investigators and the U.S. Government by seeking to utilize false and misleading information for purposes of enhancing Mr. Estey's offense level. Therefore, abusing the “good faith” it has before the court and arguing fabricated information with an “ipse dixit” expectation before the court.

Ground [Eight]

That the U.S. Government conspired to deceive Mr. Estey and the court by promising him via his attorney that

...