Opinion ID: 2734266
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Conviction Motions, 2009-2012

Text: In February 2009, Ware filed a counseled motion to vacate, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argued the district judge improperly had sentenced him as a career offender, because all of his predicate convictions had the same arrest and sentencing date, and the sentences for each ran concurrently. He also asserted none of his remaining convictions qualified as career-offender predicates. Ware further contended the government had breached his plea agreement by failing to file a motion for a sentence reduction based on substantial assistance. The government conceded Ware’s PSI improperly had based his careeroffender status on prior convictions that had not been separated by intervening arrests, and which had been consolidated for sentencing. The government argued Ware’s career-offender claim was barred by his appeal waiver, was not cognizable in a § 2255 proceeding, and was procedurally barred because of Ware’s failure to raise it on direct appeal. The government also contended Ware qualified as a career offender, based on several other convictions reported in his PSI, and Ware’s substantial-assistance claim was meritless. 5 Case: 14-10373 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 6 of 11 The district judge denied Ware’s § 2255 motion in May 2009. Regarding Ware’s career-offender claim, the judge concluded (1) Ware had waived his right to challenge his sentence collaterally; and (2) regardless, the claim was procedurally barred and was not cognizable on collateral review. The judge further determined the government had not breached Ware’s plea agreement because the government had retained the sole discretion to decide whether to file a substantialassistance motion. Both the district judge and a judge of this Court denied a certificate of appealability. In June 2009, Ware filed a pro se motion for specific performance of his plea agreement, under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(3) (2001). He sought (1) a writ of mandamus compelling the government to fully evaluate his post-sentencing cooperation to determine in good faith whether a sentence reduction was warranted, and (2) a reduced sentence of no more than 140 months. The district judge denied Ware’s motion, because the judge previously had addressed the same request in Ware’s § 2255 proceeding, and Ware had not alleged an unconstitutional motive by the government in failing to move for a sentence reduction. Ware did not appeal. In September 2011, Ware filed a pro se “Motion for Performance of Sentence Based on Substantial Assistance,” in which he argued the government had refused to move for a sentence reduction for reasons that were not rationally 6 Case: 14-10373 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 7 of 11 related to a legitimate government purpose. ROA at 389. The district judge denied Ware’s motion, because the judge previously had addressed the same claim several times, and Ware had not alleged an unconstitutional motive by the government. We dismissed Ware’s appeal of this order for failure to prosecute in March 2012. United States v. Ware, No. 12-10516 (11th Cir. Mar. 1, 2021). In June 2012, Ware filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, because the government had breached his plea agreement by failing to make the extent of his cooperation known to the judge at sentencing and by failing to move for a sentence reduction. The district judge denied Ware’s motion, since he had not alleged an unconstitutional motive by the government. We affirmed in April 2013. United States v. Ware, 517 F. App’x 830 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).