United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge
matter is before the Court upon Rodeques Lamont Wilson's
(“Movant” or “Wilson”) pro se motion
to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. In his motion, Wilson raises various
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and he asserts
that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to sentence
him. The government filed a response in opposition and a
motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below,
the Court denies Wilson's § 2255 motion and grants
the government's motion for summary judgment.
was charged in counts one and 14 of a 14-count,
multi-defendant indictment on February 26, 2015.
Specifically, count one charged Wilson with conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute 280 grams of cocaine base
and five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846. Count 14 charged Wilson with possession with
intent to distribute and distribution of a quantity of
cocaine base and a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).
faced a penalty of ten years to life on count one, and
because he had a prior felony drug conviction, the government
could have filed an information pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §
851, which would have raised Wilson's mandatory minimum
jail sentence to 20 years.
14, 2015, Wilson pleaded guilty to count one pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) for a
determinate sentence of 144 months' imprisonment. The
presentence report determined Wilson's Guidelines range
to be 168 to 210 months' imprisonment based on a total
offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of V. At
a sentencing hearing on October 20, 2015, the Court accepted
Wilson's Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea and sentenced Wilson to
144 months' imprisonment. Wilson did not file a direct
April 15, 2016, Wilson filed the instant § 2255 motion
raising the following issues, taken verbatim from his
ONE: The conviction and sentence are unconstitutional because
Movant did not receive effective assistance of counsel as
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States
(A) Counsel's performance fell below reasonable objective
standard, when he failed to object to the PSR improperly
increasing his criminal history points by two (2) under
§ 4D1.1(d) of the United States Guidelines.
(B) Counsel's performance fell below reasonable objective
standard when he neglected to object[ ] to the PSR improperly
increasing Mr. Wilson's offense level by two under
2D1.1(b)(1) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
(C) Counsel's performance fell below reasonable standard
when he neglected to object to PSR's 3 point increase of
his criminal history for a non violent prior offense failure
to stop for a blue light.
(D) Counsel's performance fell below reasonable objective
standard when he neglected to object to the three (3) point
increase to Mr. Wilson's criminal history for a prior
charge of distribution.
(E) Counsel's performance fell below reasonable objective
standard when he neglected to submit a motion to quash the
(F) Counsel's performance fell below reasonable objective
standard, when he failed to object to Mr. Wilson's
offense level being increased in light of stale conduct;
false and untrue facts, given in a[n] after arrest statement
by Demaize Benjamin.
(G) Counsel's performance fell below reasonable objective
standard, when he failed to consult with Mr. Wilson about the
PSR, and provide a copy of the ...