Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-01000/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-01000-6/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

BRADLEY STEPHEN HEDGES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:09-CV-1000-WKW 

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

ORDER

On March 6, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a recommendation that this case

be dismissed because Petitioner Bradley Stephen Hedges’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claims

do not entitle him to relief. (Doc. # 62.) Mr. Hedges objected to the recommendation. 

(Doc. # 66.) The portions of the recommendation to which a party objects are

reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

A de novo review of the record and law confirms that the recommendation

(Doc. # 62) is due to be adopted and the objections overruled. Mr. Hedges has made

four objections to the report: (1) that the recommendation did not address his claim

that his counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal his sentence despite being

requested to do so, (2) that Mr. Hedges’s attorney was ineffective because he failed

to fully investigate his client’s mental and emotional condition and to call witnesses

on mitigating factors, (3) that Mr. Hedges’s attorney did not sufficiently argue

Case 2:09-cv-01000-WKW-WC Document 67 Filed 06/20/12 Page 1 of 7
grounds for a downward departure, and (4) that Mr. Hedges’s attorney failed to object

to errors in the Presentence Investigation Report. Each objection to the Report and

Recommendation shall be dealt with in turn. 

The Magistrate Judge had the opportunity to take evidence and testimony from

Mr. Hedges and Mr. Hawthorne, the petitioner’s former attorney, during an

evidentiary hearing that was held on February 16, 2012. The Report and

Recommendation contained factual findings by the Magistrate Judge from the

evidentiary hearing. Mr. Hedges does not object to the specific factual findings of the

Magistrate Judge, but does object to the legal conclusions drawn from the facts.1

 

Mr. Hedges first objection is to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Mr. Hedges

did not reasonably demonstrate an interest in appealing. As indicated in the

Recommendation, Mr. Hedges claimed that the only time he explicitly discussed an

appeal with his attorney, Mr. Hawthorne, was immediately after the sentencing

hearing, when, he says, he told Mr. Hawthorne to file an appeal. However, the

Magistrate Judge did not find Mr. Hedges’s testimony in this regard to be credible. 

This finding is well-supported and is adopted. In his objections, Mr. Hedges now

1

 While the heading of one of Mr. Hedges’s arguments is that he objects to “the factual

findings that Attorney James [sic] consulted with Petitioner” (Doc. # 66 at 2) regarding his

appeal, Mr. Hedges does not actually argue that the Magistrate Judge made findings of fact that

were erroneous but instead argues that other evidence should be given more weight and a

different conclusion should have been drawn from the totality of the facts presented. 

2

Case 2:09-cv-01000-WKW-WC Document 67 Filed 06/20/12 Page 2 of 7
maintains that his statement during his sentencing hearing, wherein he indicated that

he had been “told by [his] lawyer and everything else” that the probation office and

the government did not object to his placement under house arrest, sufficed as a

demonstration of his interest in appealing his sentence. However, this statement does

not rise to the level of an expression of his interest in appealing. A desire to appeal

cannot be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, because there were no

non-frivolous grounds for appeal and Mr. Hedges’s plea agreement forfeited his right

to appeal a guideline sentence. Mr. Hedges received a guideline sentence adopting all

of the government’s sentencing recommendations embodied in the plea agreement. 

A rational defendant in Mr. Hedges’s position would not have been interested in

appealing, which furthers the presumption that Mr. Hedges did not request an appeal. 

See Roe v. Flores–Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480 (2000). 

Mr. Hedges received a favorable sentence, at the low end of the applicable

guideline range, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. The guideline sentence

adopted all of the government’s sentencing recommendations embodied in the plea

agreement. In the context of these facts, Mr. Hedges’s statement during the

sentencing hearing that he believed there would be no objection to house arrest cannot

be construed as a reasonable demonstration of his interest in appealing, and did not

3

Case 2:09-cv-01000-WKW-WC Document 67 Filed 06/20/12 Page 3 of 7
trigger any obligations by his counsel. Therefore, Mr. Hedges’s first objection is due

to be overruled.

Mr. Hedges’s second, third, and fourth objections challenge findings regarding

mitigating evidence that petitioner maintains should have been sought out, admitted

and argued by his counsel. For each of these objections, in order to be entitled to

relief, Mr. Hedges must demonstrate that “there is a reasonable probability that, but

for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been

different.” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 184 (1986). Mr. Hedges must

demonstrate an error by counsel that kept out information that had a reasonable

probability of altering the outcome of the sentencing hearing. 

Mr. Hedges’s second objection reasserts his claim that Mr. Hawthorne failed

to conduct a reasonable investigation into his mental and emotional condition. He

maintains that his attorney failed to investigate and introduce all the evidence that

would have bolstered his duress or coercion motion for downward departure. 

However, there is no basis for the contention that mitigating evidence was ignored by

counsel or the court. The facts alleged by Mr. Hedges in his § 2255 motion regarding

his personal history do not suggest his particular vulnerability to the influences of

others or present compelling grounds to interpret his conduct as coerced, rather than

as resulting from his own independent choices. Nor did Mr. Hedges demonstrate a

4

Case 2:09-cv-01000-WKW-WC Document 67 Filed 06/20/12 Page 4 of 7
documented history of serious mental or emotional issues, either at his sentencing or

afterward in his § 2255 motion. In fact, at the change of plea hearing, he averred that

he had not been treated for any mental illness. Mr. Hedges’s second objection fails

to point to evidence that would have led to a different outcome on his motion for a

downward departure, and is due to be overruled. 

Mr. Hedges’s third objection is that counsel did not sufficiently argue grounds

for a downward departure. This objection is largely cumulative of his second

objection. Mr. Hedges argues that counsel was ineffective for not admitting evidence

along the lines contained in the affidavits filed by his mother and sister. However, the

Magistrate Judge found in his Recommendation that the matters asserted in these

affidavits did not bolster Mr. Hedges’s claim that he should receive a duress or

coercion downward departure. In his objections, Mr. Hedges also points to a

document from Mikie McBride that includes references to “positive information”

about Mr. Hedges. There is no indication that McBride’s information would have

bolstered a duress or coercion motion for downward departure. Mr. Hedges also

points to a note from his mother forwarding information about an individual who

purportedly could have provided information about Mr. Hedges’s co-defendant’s

propensity toward violence. However, Mr. Hedges presented nothing indicating that

this individual would have, or could have, provided information to this effect, or that

5

Case 2:09-cv-01000-WKW-WC Document 67 Filed 06/20/12 Page 5 of 7
it would have altered the outcome of the sentencing. The third objection is due to be

overruled. 

Mr Hedges’s fourth objection reasserts his claims about deficiencies in the

Presentence Investigation Report and his counsel’s failure to object to such

deficiencies. None of the errors or omissions alleged in the PSR remotely rise to the

level of prejudice, much less the level of prejudice required to prevail on a § 2255

motion. The fourth objection is due to be overruled. 

Mr. Hedges received the most favorable guideline sentence available, a

sentence at the bottom of the applicable advisory guideline range. Mr. Hedges has

failed to demonstrate that additional unconsidered information existed that would have

established a reasonable probability that the sentencing court would have departed

downwards from a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines. None of the points raised

by Mr. Hedges suggests that the outcome would have been different, regardless of any

alleged deficiencies in his counsel’s performance. Mr. Hedges has not presented any

grounds to show that he is entitled to relief on his § 2255 motion. Accordingly,

it is ORDERED that:

(1) Mr. Hedges’s objections (Doc. # 66) are OVERRULED; 

(2) Mr. Hedges’s motion in the alternative for post-hearing briefing and

argument (Doc. # 66 at 2) is DENIED; and

6

Case 2:09-cv-01000-WKW-WC Document 67 Filed 06/20/12 Page 6 of 7
(3) The Recommendation (Doc. # 62) that Mr. Hedges’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion be DENIED, because the claims therein entitle him to no relief, is ADOPTED,

and this case is due to be DISMISSED with prejudice. An appropriate final judgment

will be entered. 

DONE this 20th day of June, 2012. 

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

Case 2:09-cv-01000-WKW-WC Document 67 Filed 06/20/12 Page 7 of 7