Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02168/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02168-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff,

v.

David Lee Frater, 

Defendant/Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 19-02168-PHX-DGC (MHB)

CR 14-01517-PHX-DGC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Defendant/Movant David Lee Frater, who is confined in the Federal Correctional

Institution, filed a pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct

Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. (CV 19-02168 (“CV”) Doc. 1; CR 14-01517

(“CR”) Doc. 178.) Plaintiff United States of America (the “government”) filed a Response

to the Motion, and Movant filed a Reply. (CV Docs. 7, 9.)

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Movant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of

child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(A)(a)(5)(B), (b)(2), and 2256. On May

9, 2016, the Court sentenced Movant to a 125-month term of imprisonment followed by

lifetime supervised release.

On August 27, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

dismissed Movant’s appeal finding that Movant had waived his right to appeal his conviction

and sentence. The court specifically found that “[c]ontrary to Frater’s pro se argument, the

Case 2:19-cv-02168-DGC Document 15 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

record reflects that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and his motion to withdraw his

guilty plea is covered by the appeal waiver.” United States v. Frater, 735 Fed.Appx. 467 (9th

Cir. 2018).

In his § 2255 Motion, Movant alleges four grounds for relief – none of which attack

the voluntary and intelligent acceptance of his plea agreement. In Ground One, Movant

alleges that the original search and seizure of his home computer was illegally executed by

the New Zealand Police Department, using electronic means. In Ground Two, Movant asserts

that the law requires the government to produce a minimum of three verified and validated

pornographic images of children who have been legally identified as victims. In Ground

Three, Movant claims that unvalidated and unverified secondary evidence was presented in

a superseding indictment. In Ground Four, Movant contends that outlawing sexually explicit

photographs of children propagates crimes against them by repressing information the public

needs to identify victims and perpetrators. (CV Docs. 3, 1.)

DISCUSSION

In its Response, the government argues that pursuant to his plea agreement, Movant

has clearly and expressly agreed waived his right to bring an appeal or collateral attack. As

such, the government argues that Movant’s claims are waived.

In his written plea agreement, Movant agreed to waive

any right to file an appeal, any collateral attack, and any other writ or motion

that challenges the conviction, an order of restitution or forfeiture, the entry of

judgment against the defendant, or any aspect of the defendant’s sentence,

including the manner in which the sentence is determined, including but not

limited to ... motions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255 (habeas petitions) ...

. This waiver shall result in the dismissal of any appeal, collateral attack, or

other motion the defendant might file challenging the conviction, order of

restitution or forfeiture, or sentence in this case. This waiver shall not be

construed to bar an otherwise-preserved claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel or of “prosecutorial misconduct” (as that term is defined by Section

II.B of Ariz. Ethics Op. 15-01 (2015)).

(CR Doc. 75.) Further, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle held a change-of-plea hearing, found

that Movant’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily made, and recommended that the

guilty plea be accepted. (CV Doc. 7, Exh. 2.) The record reflects that no objections were

Case 2:19-cv-02168-DGC Document 15 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 In addition to addressing the merits of his claims, Movant also asserts in his Reply

to the government’s Response that his right to appeal was not waived and that Judge

Campbell “modified [his] plea bargain verbally, in court, in the presence of witnesses, he

allowed [Movant] to reserve [his] right to appeal.” Movant argues that Judge Campbell “reinstated [his] right to appeal, after [his] strong protests against that waiver in the plea

bargain.” The Court is not persuaded, finding that his contentions are belied by the record.

Further, to the extent new claims, raised for the first time can be gleaned from Movant’s

Reply, the Court declines to address any such claim. See United States v. Berry, 624 F.3d

1031, 1039 n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (declining to address an argument raised for the first time in

a reply brief in a § 2255 motion); Delgadillo v. Woodford, 527 F.3d 919, 930 n.4 (9th Cir.

2008) (“Arguments raised for the first time in [habeas] petitioner’s reply brief are deemed

waived.”).

- 3 -

filed, and the District Court accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge, as well

as, Movant’s guilty plea.

With limited exceptions not relevant here based on the claims raised in Movant’s §

2255 Motion, a defendant may waive the statutory right to bring a § 2255 motion if he

knowingly and voluntarily signs a plea agreement that contains an express waiver of that

right. See United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Abarca,

985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993); see also United States. v. Charles, 581 F.3d 927, 931

(9th Cir. 2009) (a “defendant’s waiver of his appellate rights is enforceable if (1) the

language of the waiver encompasses his right to appeal on the grounds raised, and (2) the

waiver is knowingly and voluntarily made” (internal quotation omitted)).

The Court finds that Movant has waived his right to collaterally attack his conviction

and sentence in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion. Based on that waiver, the Court will recommend

that Movant’s § 2255 Motion be denied.1

CONCLUSION

Having determined that Movant’s has clearly and expressly waived his right to bring

an appeal or collateral attack and, as such, has waived his claims raised in his § 2255 Motion,

the Court will recommend that Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence

be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

Case 2:19-cv-02168-DGC Document 15 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Movant’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (CV Doc.

1; CR Doc. 178) be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because Petitioner has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of

Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, objections

to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. Failure

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result

in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further

review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure

timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be

considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order

or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 28th day of February, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-02168-DGC Document 15 Filed 02/28/20 Page 4 of 4