Moody v. United States of America (INMATE3)

Filing 25

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 7/12/2010. (jg, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICKEY LEE MOODY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08cv63-MHT (WO)

OPINION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, petitioner Mickey Lee Moody, a federal inmate, filed this lawsuit seeking

habeas relief.

This lawsuit is now before the court on

the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that Moody's writ petition be denied. court are Moody's objections to the Also before the recommendation.

After an independent and de novo review of the record, the court concludes that Moody's objections should be overruled adopted. and the magistrate judge's recommendation

The

court,

however,

adds

these

brief

comments

regarding some of Moody's objections: Moody contends that the United States breached the plea agreement in this case. Because Moody raised no such claim in his § 2255

petition, it is not properly before this court in his objections. In any event, the allegations underlying For instance, he contends

this claim are without merit.

that, under the plea agreement, his sentence would be no more than 120 months. However, the plea agreement

plainly provided that his sentence would be no more than 180 months, and, at the plea hearing, he affirmed under oath that he understood his sentence could be up to 180 months if it was determined that he was an Armed Career Criminal, which is, in fact, what was determined in his case. months. Moody next suggests in his objections that his Accordingly, Moody was properly sentenced to 180

counsel induced him to sign the plea agreement.

Again,

this is a claim that was not presented in his § 2255

2

petition.

Moreover, to whatever extent he did assert a

related claim of ineffective performance by his counsel, he failed, as explained in the magistrate judge's

recommendation, to support such a claim.

Everything

Moody says in his objections about what he understood the terms of his plea agreement to be (for example, that he would be subject to a sentencing range of only 57 to 71 months) is completely belied by the record of the guiltyplea hearing as well as the affidavits of his counsel. Finally, Moody asserts in his objections that his counsel's ineffective performance invalidated the plea agreement's waiver provision, which barred him from later asserting challenges to his sentence. The waiver

provision was absolute as to sentencing issues: There were no exceptions for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims or claims of prosecutorial misconduct. As noted

in the magistrate judge's recommendation, the record establishes that the waiver provision is valid. In his

objections, Moody is attempting, with his ineffective-

3

assistance-of-counsel claim, to do an end-run around the waiver, but such claim is barred by the valid waiver. He

has presented nothing to show that the waiver was not entered knowingly and voluntarily, as the magistrate judge found in his recommendation. An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 12th day of July, 2010.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE