Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_07-cv-08040/USCOURTS-alnd-1_07-cv-08040-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brandon Keith LeCroy
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

References to “Doc. ___” are to the documents as numbered by the Clerk of the Court in the Court’s record in this case.

1

The pleadings from the original criminal case are designated as “07-0011” and the pleadings on the motion to vacate are designated

as “07-08040”.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

BRANDON KEITH LECROY, )

)

Movant/Defendant, )

)

v. ) 1:07-cv-08040-VEH-JEO

) 1:07-cr-00011-VEH-JEO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brandon Keith LeCroy initiated the present action by filing a motion pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction and sentence. (07-08040 at Doc. 1).1

Upon consideration of the defendant’s arguments, the Court finds that the motion is

due to be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

The defendant was charged on January 31, 2007, in a two-count indictment.

(07-0011 at Doc. 2). He was charged in the first count with knowing receipt and

possession of a firearm which was not registered to him in the National Firearms

Registration and Transfer Record, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Id. He was

FILED

 2008 Aug-22 PM 02:37

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:07-cv-08040-VEH-JEO Document 8 Filed 08/22/08 Page 1 of 5
2

charged in the second count with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The defendant executed a plea agreement on

both counts on April 5, 2007. Id. at Doc. 11. He was sentenced on July 10, 2007.

He received a 120 month sentence on count one and a 188 month sentence on count

two, to be served concurrently with each other and with a circuit court sentence,

followed by 60 months supervised release time. Id. at Doc. 16. The defendant did

not appeal either the plea or sentence.

On December 21, 2007, he filed the present motion to vacate. Therein, he

alleges that (1) his counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty to a

concurrent federal sentence, (2) the Grand Jury failed to charge him with a 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) violation in the indictment, (3) his counsel was ineffective for advising

him to plead guilty to count two “where no reference to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) would

legally subject him to the legal penalties of the statute 924(e),” and (4) his counsel

was ineffective for not preserving his Fourth Amendment violation claim.

(07-08040 at Doc. 1). The magistrate judge assigned this matter required the United

States to file a response to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.

(07-08040 at Doc. 2). The United States responded that the motion was due to be

dismissed because the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his

right to file a motion pursuant to § 2255. Id. at Doc. 4. The Court afforded the

Case 1:07-cv-08040-VEH-JEO Document 8 Filed 08/22/08 Page 2 of 5
3

defendant an opportunity to reply to the response ofthe United States. The defendant

responded with a motion for a full evidentiary hearing. Id. at Doc. 6.

DISCUSSION

Waiver

The defendant agreed to waive his right to seek relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255 when he entered his guilty plea in this case. That waiver is evidenced by the

plea agreement. (07-0011 at Doc. 11). Additionally, the defendant acknowledged the

waiver during his guilty plea hearing. Specifically, at the plea hearing, the Court

inquired whether the defendant understood that he was giving up certain of his rights

to challenge the plea and sentences imposed. (07-0011 at Doc. 18 at p. 7). The

defendant, who was under oath, indicated that he understood the plea agreement and

the waiver provisions. Id.

As asserted by the United States, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has

held that an appeal waiver provision in a plea agreement is enforceable if the waiver

is made knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320,

1333 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 961, 122 S. Ct. 2666, 153 L. Ed. 2d 840

(2002); United States v. Pease, 240 F.3d 938, 942 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

967, 122 S. Ct. 381, 151 L. Ed. 2d 290 (2001). See also Williams v. United States,

396 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2005) (a valid sentence-appeal waiver entered into

Case 1:07-cv-08040-VEH-JEO Document 8 Filed 08/22/08 Page 3 of 5
4

voluntarily and knowingly pursuant to a plea agreement, precluded the defendant

from attempting to attack his sentence in a collateral proceeding through a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing). Similarly, a waiver of collateral

review has also been approved by the Eleventh Circuit so long as the United States

demonstrates that the waiver was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

Allen v. Thomas, 161 F.3d 667 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d

1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993). The Eleventh Circuit views a waiver as a contract

between the Government and a criminal defendant. It has stated: 

[A]mong the considerations that a defendant may offer as part of such

a contract is waiver of his right to appeal, provided that the waiver is

made knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d

1343, 1350 (11th Cir. 1993). In this case, [the appellant’s] waiver was

clearly knowing and voluntary – he was specifically questioned by the

district court regarding the waiver of his right to appeal. See United

States v. Buchanan, 131 F.3d 1005, 1008 (11th Cir. 1997). The plea

agreement is therefore enforceable and would appear to bar this appeal.

United States v. Howle, 166 F.3d 1166, 1168 (11th Cir. 1999).

The record demonstrates that the defendant’s assent to the terms of his plea

agreement, including his waiver of his right to appeal and to pursue relief in a § 2255

motion, was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. The court specifically

informed the defendant that waivers in plea agreements may be enforceable, and that

the Appellate Court was the appropriate forum for any challenge to the enforceability

Case 1:07-cv-08040-VEH-JEO Document 8 Filed 08/22/08 Page 4 of 5
5

of the waiver. (07-08040 at Doc. 4-3 at p. 7). Additionally, the record demonstrates

that the defendant had the ability to understand his decision to waive these rights. Id.

at p. 3. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion is barred from review by this court.

CONCLUSION

Premised on the foregoing, the defendant’s motion to vacate is due to be denied

and dismissed with prejudice. An appropriate order denying this motion will be

entered contemporaneously herewith. 

DONE this the 22nd day of August, 2008.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

Case 1:07-cv-08040-VEH-JEO Document 8 Filed 08/22/08 Page 5 of 5