United States v. Wilford
| Decision Date | 01 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ELH-11-258,Civil ELH-19-1926 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RICHARD ANTHONY WILFORD, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RICHARD ANTHONY WILFORD, Defendant.
CRIMINAL No. ELH-11-258
Civil No. ELH-19-1926
United States District Court, D. Maryland
July 1, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ellen L. Hollander, United States District Judge.
This Memorandum Opinion resolves a post-conviction petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as well as a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), submitted by or on behalf of defendant Richard Anthony Wilford. In December 2013, a jury in the District of Maryland convicted Wilford of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. ECF 267. The Court sentenced Wilford to 340 months of incarceration. ECF 353; ECF 354. He is currently serving his sentence at FCI Victorville. See ECF 663 at 1.
Largely through appointed counsel, Wilford has filed a “Motion to Vacate or Correct Illegal Sentence.” ECF 546. It has twice been supplemented. ECF 615; ECF 659. I shall refer to ECF 546, ECF 615, and ECF 659 collectively as the “Petition.” The government has responded in opposition. ECF 640; ECF 673. And, Wilford has replied. ECF 650; ECF 674.
Wilford has also filed a pro se “Motion for a Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to the First Step Act and the Changes to the Compassionate Release Statute and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).” ECF 595.[1] It has been supplemented five times. ECF 602; ECF 606; ECF 622; ECF 635; ECF 663.
I shall refer to ECF 595 and the five supplements collectively as the “Motion.” The government opposes the Motion. ECF 629.
The submissions are accompanied by various exhibits. In addition, Wilford has filed several other motions and submissions.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny the Petition, but I shall grant the Motion in part, reducing Wilford's sentence to 280 months of imprisonment.
I. Factual and Procedural Background[2]
A. Indictment, Trial, Sentencing, and Appeal
On May 5, 2011, a federal grand jury in Maryland returned an Indictment against Wilford and five others: Lawrence Lee Hayes, Jr.; Bryan Eammon Williams; George Lamar Plunkett; Mark Anthony Hawkins; and Robert Nyakana. They were charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. ECF 1. According to the Indictment, the conspiracy spanned the period from August 2010 to May 2011. Id. A Superseding Indictment was filed on August 25, 2011, adding a forfeiture count. ECF 59; see also ECF 60; ECF 61.
An arrest warrant was issued for Wilford on May 5, 2011. ECF 6. Law enforcement authorities located Wilford in California in August 2011, and attempted to arrest him there, without success.
On August 8, 2011, while Wilford was still at large, the government filed a “Consent Motion to Exclude Time Pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act” (ECF 57), seeking to exclude time
under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, “for the period from the first initial appearance in the case (May 17, 2011) through to the final trial date to be set in this case.” ECF 57 at 7. By this point, four of Wilford's codefendants had been arrested. Id. at 1.[3] The Court granted the motion. ECF 58.
Wilford was apprehended in Baltimore on September 16, 2011. On that date, he appeared before Magistrate Judge Beth Gesner for an initial appearance. ECF 64.[4] At the hearing, he was represented by retained counsel, William B. Purpura, Jr.[5] See ECF 291 at 1-3 (Tr. of Sept. 16, 2011).[6] At that hearing, Purpura advised the court that the defendant had received a copy of the Indictment. Id. at 3. Judge Gesner then advised Wilford that he had been charged in a Superseding Indictment with conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. She also informed him of the maximum penalty, if convicted; the mandatory minimum penalty, if convicted; and the forfeiture count. Id. at 3-4. The defendant indicated that he understood the charge and the possible penalty. Id. at 4. Thereafter, Judge Gesner advised the defendant of his rights. The defendant was sworn and, under oath, he stated that he understood “everything so far[.]” Id. at 5.
At the conclusion of the proceeding, Judge Gesner asked: “[D]o you want to do an arraignment while you are here?” ECF 291 at 7. Defense counsel responded: “I would ask not for this -- for a lot of reasons, but no.” Id.
Prior to trial, neither the government, Wilford, nor his lawyer ever called the Court's attention to the fact that no arraignment had been held. This certainly was not due to a general hesitancy to communicate with the Court. Indeed, during the pendency of the case, the Court held several scheduling conferences with counsel. See, e.g., ECF 69; ECF 86; docket entry of August 26, 2013; docket entry of August 27, 2013; ECF 234; ECF 244. Moreover, on several occasions, Wilford personally wrote to the Court and he filed pro se motions. See, e.g., ECF 197, ECF 198, ECF 202, ECF 203, ECF 208, ECF 235, and ECF 256. In addition, defense counsel filed numerous pretrial motions. See, e.g., defendant's “Motion to Suppress Tangible and Derivative Evidence” (ECF 92); “Defendant's Motion to Compel Disclosure of Promises of Immunity, Leniency, or Preferential Treatment and Disclosure of Exculpatory Information and Points and Authorities in Support Thereof” (ECF 93); “Motion for an Order Directing the Government to Provide Brady/Giglio/Jencks Material” (ECF 94); “Motion for Disclosure Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and 609” (ECF 95); “Motion for Pretrial Procedures Regarding Recordings” (ECF 96); “Addendum to Motion to Suppress Tangible and Derivative Evidence Pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(3) and Request for a Franks Hearing” (ECF 97); “Supplemental and Consolidated Motion to Suppress Tangible and Derivative Evidence” (ECF 160); and “Motion for Disclosure of Relevant Evidence Withheld by the Government and Request for Immediate Hearing.” ECF 166. An additional submission is docketed at ECF 180.[7]
In general, the suppression motion docketed at ECF 160 challenged evidence derived from surveillance conducted by law enforcement officers by means of Global Positioning System (“GPS”) tracking devices and court-authorized “pinging” of cellular phones. Relying on the Supreme Court's then-recent decision in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), which ruled that GPS tracking constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, Wilford maintained that the warrantless use of GPS tracking technology violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, Wilford asserted that, despite court authorization obtained under Maryland's pen register and trap and trace statute, Md. Code (2020 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.), §§ 10-4B-01 et seq. of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, the pinging of his cellular phone was not authorized by the statute, and was conducted in violation of Maryland law and the Fourth Amendment. Thus, under the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule, Wilford sought to suppress evidence derived from the warrantless use of GPS and the cell phone pinging. Wilford also requested a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), challenging several search warrants obtained during the investigation.
In the motion docketed at ECF 166, Wilford sought evidence allegedly withheld by the government, including internal memoranda circulated by “various law enforcement agencies” pertaining to GPS tracking, in light of the decision in August 2010 in United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010). In that case, the court determined that the warrantless use of a GPS device to track a target vehicle's movements for 28 days constituted an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment. According to Wilford, these materials were relevant to ECF 160.
On January 13, 2013, the defense filed a “Motion to Withdraw Request for GPS Data,” because it had been provided by the government. ECF 171. I granted the motion. ECF 172.
The Court held a motions hearing on January 25, 2013. ECF 174. After the hearing in January 2013, counsel submitted supplemental briefing. See ECF 180 (defense); ECF 181 (government). Then, the Court held another motions hearing on March 8, 2013. ECF 182. And, on May 22, 2013, Wilford filed a pro se “Motion to Compel the Government to Disclose All Discovery That May Be Relevant and Material to Defendant's Defense.” ECF 197.
By Memorandum Opinion (ECF 205) and Order (ECF 206) of June 7, 2013, the Court denied the motion to suppress (ECF 160), but granted the motion for disclosure (ECF 166), in part. See United States v. Wilford, 961 F.Supp.2d 740 (D. Md. 2013), aff'd, 689 Fed. App'x 727 (4th Cir. 2017). I ruled that Wilford had no standing to challenge the GPS tracking and pinging of certain vehicles and cell phones. ECF 205 at 25-27. Furthermore, I concluded that because the government's warrantless use of GPS tracking devices preceded Jones, the government was entitled to rely on the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, articulated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1983). ECF 205 at 27-42. In the alternative, I found that suppression would be inappropriate under the doctrines of inevitable discovery and independent source. Id. at 43-45. As for the cell phone pinging, I concluded that, even assuming, arguendo, that pinging does not fall within Maryland's pen register statute, this did not supply a basis for exclusion; there was no Fourth Amendment violation. Id. at 45-54. And, I found that defendant had not met his burden for a Franks hearing. Id. at 54-61.
However, I found that Wilford was entitled to certain documents included within his request at ECF 166, and granted that motion in part. Id. at 21-25. And, my denial of ECF 160 was without prejudice to Wilford's right to renew...
To continue reading
Request your trial