United States v. Magruder

• Decision Date: 06 December 2021
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL ACTION 19-203 (CKK)
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. EDWARD MAGRUDER, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
EDWARD MAGRUDER, Defendant.

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 19-203 (CKK)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

December 6, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In this criminal action, Defendant Edward Magruder pled guilty to unlawful possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Pursuant to a plea agreement under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), Defendant Magruder and the Government agreed that a sentence between 144 months and 180 months of incarceration, followed by five years of supervised release, was an appropriate sentence.

Since Defendant Magruder pled guilty on October 25, 2019, he has filed two motions to withdraw his guilty plea, both of which have been denied by this Court. After denying Defendant Magruder’s second motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the Court scheduled a sentencing hearing to take place on February 23, 2021. The sentencing did not go forward; instead, Defendant Magruder requested permission to file “supplemental briefing” on his second motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Court permitted Defendant to do so. To date, Defendant Magruder has now filed nine pleadings regarding the same Second Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea, arguing that various defects with a warrant authorizing law enforcement to obtain location data from Defendant Magruder’s cell phone service provider, Verizon, and the affidavit submitted in support thereof require the Court to invalidate the warrant, his arrest, and his guilty plea under oath. Related to some of the alleged deficiencies with the warrant, Defendant Magruder has also filed a [57] Motion

1

for an Order to Verizon, in which Defendant Magruder seeks to obtain the materials transmitted to and from Verizon regarding the FBI’s court-authorized collection of location data from one of his cell phones. In his supplemental briefing, Defendant Magruder further contends that law enforcement lacked probable cause to arrest him and to search his backpack, which contained two “bricks” of heroin.

Notably missing from any of Defendant Magruder’s numerous pleadings is any assertion that his plea hearing was tainted or that he is actually innocent of the crime to which he pled guilty under oath. Accordingly, the Court’s conclusion from its earlier Memorandum Opinions denying Defendant Magruder’s motions to withdraw his plea remains unchanged; he has failed to present a “fair and just reason” for permitting him to withdraw his guilty plea. Upon consideration of the pleadings,^[1] the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Defendant Magruder’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and DENIES his motion seeking an order to Verizon.

2

I. BACKGROUND

Pursuant to the Criminal Complaint in this action, filed on June 10, 2019, Defendant Magruder was involved in “the distribution of large quantities of narcotics.” Compl. Stmt. of Facts ¶ 1, ECF No. 1-1. The Complaint alleges that Defendant Magruder would travel from Washington, D.C. to New York to acquire narcotics. Id. In May 2019, the FBI obtained a warrant and court order authorizing it to collect from Verizon the prospective geolocation data associated with Defendant Magruder’s cell phone. Id.; see Gov.’s Opp’n to Def.’s 2d Mot. to Withdraw Guilty Plea Ex. 1, Warrant, ECF No. 47-1.

On June 7, 2019, Defendant Magruder traveled to New York by bus. Compl. Stmt. of Facts ¶ 1. FBI agents “observed him for an hour” making “calls using a flip phone (not the phone that was being tracked).” Id. He had a blue backpack. Id. On the next day, Defendant Magruder returned to Washington, D.C. by bus. Id. Upon his arrival at Union Station, he was stopped by FBI agents who searched his backpack. Id. The agents found a “brick of compressed tan powder,” weighing approximately 1,200 grams, and “wrapped in duct tape and several plastic bags,” which “field tested positive for the presence of opiates.” Id. Defendant was arrested, and “advised of his rights which he chose to waive and make a statement.” Id. at 2. He stated that he had traveled to New York “several times” to acquire heroin, which he then sold in smaller quantities in Washington, D.C. Id.

Defendant Magruder was charged by Indictment with one count of possessing with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing one kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Indictment, ECF No. 5. Although Defendant Magruder initially expressed interest in proceeding to trial on this charge, see Minute Order (Sept. 13, 2019), his counsel subsequently informed the Court that the Government had made a plea offer, and

3

requested that Defendant Magruder be afforded time to consider it. See Minute Order (Oct. 4, 2019). At a status hearing on October 8, 2019, Defendant Magruder indicated that he intended to accept the Government’s plea offer. See Minute Order (Oct. 8, 2019).

The Government’s plea offer, made under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), included a recommended sentence between 144 and 180 months, with a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. See Minute Order (Oct. 8, 2019). During the status hearing, Defendant Magruder’s then-counsel explained that “Mr. Magruder appears to have at least two prior convictions that, if the Government had filed the [21 U.S.C. §] 851 notices, would have put him in jeopardy of receiving a mandatory minimum term of incarceration of 25 years.” Hr’g Tr. (Oct. 8, 2019) at 4:20–23, ECF No. 19. Counsel for the Government stated that, even absent a 21 U.S.C. § 851 notice, if Defendant Magruder pled guilty to the indictment, his advisory sentencing guidelines range would be 262 to 327 months, with a mandatory minimum of 10 years. Id. at 6:14–15. Defense counsel noted that the plea offer would reduce the incarceration time “a considerable amount.” Id. at 4:24–5:1. Defendant Magruder affirmed that he had received and reviewed the evidence against him. Id. at 5:6–9.

During the next status hearing on October 22, 2019, the Court explained the Probation Office’s findings on Defendant Magruder’s criminal history calculation. See Order, ECF No. 6; Probation Mem., ECF No. 10. The Court also explained that Defendant Magruder would likely be eligible for a 21 U.S.C. § 851 notice by the Government, increasing the mandatory minimum sentence to 25 years. Hr’g Tr. (Oct. 22, 2019) at 2:8–21, ECF No. 20. During the status hearing, Defendant Magruder, through his counsel expressed some confusion as to the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea. Id. at 7:13–14. The Court explained that Defendant Magruder faced a mandatory minimum of 10 years based on the charge contained in the Indictment. Id. at 8:4–15. If the

4

Government filed a 21 U.S.C. § 851 notice, for which it appeared Defendant Magruder was eligible, the mandatory minimum would increase to 25 years. Id. at 8:16–9:5. The Court stated that it had no control over the mandatory minimums and could not sentence Defendant Magruder to a lesser sentence than the mandatory minimum. Id. at 9:3–11. The Court further explained that if the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea was accepted by the defendant and the Court, Defendant Magruder’s sentence would have to be between 144 and 180 months, of which 120 months would be a mandatory minimum. Id. at 8:11–15. The Court explained to Defendant Magruder “this is your decision. Your counsel can go over the evidence with you, can go over what the choices are that you have, what the consequences are, can give you advice; and you can decide to accept it or not.” Id. at 12:12–15. After reviewing the effect of the plea offer, Defendant Magruder confirmed that all requested discovery had been provided. Id. at 12:5–9. He also stated that he was prepared to go forward with accepting the plea agreement. Id. at 13:14–17.

On October 25, 2019, Defendant Magruder was placed under oath and pled guilty to a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and (b)(1)(A), accepting the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, setting a sentence of 144 to 180 months. See Minute Entry (Oct. 25, 2019); Plea Agreement § 4, ECF No. 13. In so doing, Defendant Magruder agreed that he had traveled from Washington, D.C. to New York on “at least seven separate occasions” between December 2018 and May 2019. Plea Agreement § 2; Gov.’s Proffer of Proof at 3, ECF No. 12. Before each trip, he “communicated with a person in Colombia.” Gov.’s Proffer of Proof at 3. Defendant Magruder agreed that prior to his arrest, he had traveled to New York to “receive heroin,” that he usually received “two bricks at a time” and that he then “sold heroin in smaller quantities” in Washington, D.C. Id. at 3–4. The Court accepted the plea but held in abeyance accepting the proposed sentence until after the Court could review the presentence report.

5

On November 20, 2019, the Court received a letter from Defendant Magruder which was dated October 25, 2019. See Letter from Def., ECF No. 17. Therein, Defendant Magruder stated that he was not satisfied with his counsel who represented him at the plea hearing based, in part, on his counsel’s alleged failure to properly investigate the case. Id. Defendant Magruder also expressed some confusion as to whether or not his plea agreement contained a mandatory minimum of 10 years. Id. That same day, Defendant Magruder’s then-counsel filed a motion to withdraw. See Mot. to Withdraw, ECF No. 15.

The Court appointed Defendant Magruder new counsel, scheduled a status conference in the case, allowing adequate time for new counsel to prepare, and stayed the deadlines for the sentencing briefing. See Minute Order (Dec. 6, 2019). On December 12, 2019, the Court held a status conference during which Defendant Magruder was represented by his new counsel. Defendant Magruder expressed that he was satisfied with his new counsel. The Court set a further status...