Leslie v. USA
Filing
23
ORDER denying 12 Second Amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the United States and against Petitioner, and close the file. Signed by Judge Brian J. Davis on 9/12/2022. (JHC)
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 35 PageID 156
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
ANDREW RYAN LESLIE,
Movant,
vs.
Case No.:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
3:19-cv-1300-BJD-JBT
3:16-cr-154-BJD-JBT
/
ORDER
Andrew Ryan Leslie, through counsel, moves under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to
vacate his convictions and sentence for two counts of producing child
pornography. (Civ. Doc. 12, Second Amended § 2255 Motion; Civ. Doc. 12-1,
Movant’s Ex. 1; Civ. Doc. 12-2, Movant’s Ex. 2.) 1 He alleges that his attorney
gave ineffective assistance in pre-plea proceedings, plea negotiations, and at
sentencing, and that his sentence is cruel and unusual. The United States
responded in opposition (Civ. Doc. 20, Response) and Leslie replied (Civ. Doc.
21, Reply). 2 Thus, the case is ripe for a decision.
“Civ. Doc. __” refers to entries on the civil § 2255 docket, No. 3:19-cv-1300-BJD-JBT.
“Crim. Doc. __” refers to entries on the criminal docket, No. 3:16-cr-154-BJD-JBT.
1
Leslie also filed a “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence” (Civ. Doc. 22) nearly nine months after filing the Second Amended § 2255
Motion and more than a month after the government responded. Leslie did not request leave
to file the belated memorandum. Thus, it is due to be stricken. In any event, considering the
Memorandum does not alter the analysis.
2
1
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 35 PageID 157
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255
Proceedings 3, the Court has considered the need for an evidentiary hearing and
determines that a hearing is unnecessary to resolve the merits. No evidentiary
hearing is required because Leslie’s allegations are affirmatively contradicted
by the record, patently frivolous, or even assuming the facts he alleges are true,
he still would not be entitled to relief. Rosin v. United States, 786 F.3d 873, 877
(11th Cir. 2015); see also Patel v. United States, 252 F. App’x 970, 975 (11th
Cir. 2007). 4 Leslie’s Second Amended § 2255 Motion is due to be denied.
I.
Background
Leslie came to the attention of the United States Department of
Homeland Security in 2015, when Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)
launched an investigation into certain websites known to host videos and
images of child pornography. Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) (Crim.
Doc. 50) ¶ 8. In 2016, agents identified Leslie as a member of one of these
websites and an administrator of another. Id. Further investigation revealed
that Leslie lived in Middleburg, Florida. In April 2016, HSI agents began
Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings expressly requires the Court
to review the record, including any transcripts and submitted materials, to determine whether
an evidentiary hearing is warranted before resolving a § 2255 motion.
3
The Court does not rely on unpublished opinions as binding precedent, but they may
be cited in this Order when the Court finds them persuasive on a particular point. See
McNamara v. GEICO, 30 F.4th 1055, 1060–61 (11th Cir. 2022); see generally Fed. R. App. P.
32.1; 11th Cir. R. 36–2 (“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they
may be cited as persuasive authority.”).
4
2
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 3 of 35 PageID 158
monitoring Leslie’s internet activity using a “pen register tap and trace.” Id.
But in August 2016, the pen register concluded because Leslie switched internet
service providers and stopped using the monitored account. Id.
In October 2016, law enforcement officers arrested three individuals for
their involvement in child pornography, one of whom “reported a previous faceto-face meeting with Leslie in Nashville, Tennessee.” Id. ¶ 9. This individual
would become known as Patrick Dane Falte. Sentencing Transcript (Crim. Doc.
66) at 42; see also United States v. Falte, No. 3:17-cr-44 (M.D. Tenn.). Falte
stated that in online chats and in meeting Leslie, they shared their mutual
attraction to children and watched child pornography they had made
themselves or received from other sources. PSR ¶ 9.
During the meeting, Leslie showed [Falte] video files depicting female
toddlers and infants. One of the video files showed Leslie anally
penetrating an infant. Leslie told the individual that he had access to the
children because he babysat them or was related to them. Leslie stated
one of the children belonged to a former girlfriend. Forensic review of
[Falte’s] computer revealed child pornography that had been distributed
to him by Leslie.
Id.
On October 18, 2016, officers from HSI and other agencies executed a
federal search warrant at Leslie’s residence in Middleburg, Florida. Id. ¶ 10.
When agents entered the home, they “witnessed Leslie emerge from the master
bedroom. Leslie stated, in substance, that a minor female child, referred to by
Leslie as a ‘toddler,’ had been in bed with him when the agents arrived (later
3
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 4 of 35 PageID 159
identified as Child 1).” Id. While searching the home, officers found a digital
camera in the master bedroom next to the bed, which contained an SD adapter
and an SD card. Id. ¶ 11. Forensic examination of the SD card revealed fortytwo pornographic images depicting Leslie with two minor female children:
“Child 1,” who was about two years old at the time, and “Child 2,” who was
about seven months old. Id. ¶ 12.
These images depicted, among other things, Child 1 being vaginally and
orally penetrated by Leslie’s penis. There were also images depicting the
lascivious exhibition of Child 2’s genitalia. In several images, Leslie [was]
depicted gripping his own penis and contacting the genitalia of Child 1
with it.
Id. HSI agents also seized several other computer devices from Leslie’s
residence. Id. ¶ 13. While agents were executing the search warrant, a woman
came to the residence with a child and “advised the agents that she was
dropping her child off for Leslie to babysit.” Id. ¶ 14. That child was the victim
known as Child 2. See id.; see also id. ¶ 3.
Leslie was arrested that same day and the Court appointed Mark
Rosenblum, a seasoned federal public defender, to represent him. (Crim. Doc.
6.) A federal grand jury indicted Leslie on two counts of producing child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and (e). (Crim. Doc. 13,
Indictment.) Count One charged Leslie with producing visual depictions of
Child 1 engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Count Two charged Leslie with
producing visual depictions of Child 2 engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
4
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 5 of 35 PageID 160
A couple of months after his arrest, Leslie signed a proffer agreement and
consented to be interviewed by the government “about potential violations of
federal criminal laws involving, but not necessarily limited to, violations of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2251, 2251A, and 2252, et seq., pertaining to the sexual abuse
and exploitation of children.” Signed Proffer Agreement (Civ. Doc. 20-1) p. 1.
The agreement promised “use immunity,” meaning that statements provided
during the proffer would be inadmissible in the government’s case-in-chief or at
sentencing, albeit with some exceptions. One exception allowed for “derivative
use,” and another precluded use immunity from extending to “crimes of
violence,” which the agreement defined to include violations of 18 U.S.C. §§
2241–2245, 2251, 2251A, and 2252A(g), as well as the rape or sexual abuse of a
minor. During the proffer, Leslie disclosed the passwords to his computer
devices, which led to the discovery of “approximately 33,000 images and videos
of child pornography.” PSR ¶ 16. Leslie also reported that he had “sexually
abused three additional children” and photographed a fourth child, id. ¶ 17,
evidence of which was also found on Leslie’s devices, id. ¶ 16.
On October 6, 2017, Leslie pled guilty under a written Plea Agreement to
the charges in the Indictment. Plea Agreement (Crim. Doc. 39); Plea Transcript
(Crim. Doc. 65). As to Count One, Leslie admitted to producing images that
depicted him vaginally and orally penetrating Child 1 with his penis. Plea
Agreement at 21–23; Plea Tr. at 24–27. As to Count Two, Leslie admitted to
5
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 6 of 35 PageID 161
producing images that depicted the lascivious exhibition of Child 2’s genitalia.
Id. Leslie also admitted that he had produced, received, distributed, and
possessed numerous other images and videos of child pornography on his
computer devices, and that during online conversations, he had discussed
engaging in sexual activity with several minor children. Id. The Magistrate
Judge who presided over the plea colloquy reported that “[a]fter cautioning and
examining the Defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned
in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary,
and that the offenses charged [are] supported by an independent basis in fact
containing each of the essential elements of such offenses.” (Crim. Doc. 40.) The
Court accepted Leslie’s plea without objection and adjudicated him guilty.
(Crim. Doc. 42.)
According to the Presentence Investigation Report, Leslie’s guidelines
offense level was 48 (though it maxed out at 43 under U.S.S.G. § 5A) and his
Criminal History Category was I, yielding a guideline sentence of life
imprisonment. See PSR ¶¶ 55–58, 61, 102. But because the cumulative
statutory maximum penalty was 60 years’ (720 months’) imprisonment, that
became his guidelines range. Id. ¶ 102. At sentencing, the Court heard
arguments from the parties and considered a psychological report submitted by
Leslie’s attorney, which showed that Leslie was diagnosed with Pedophilic
Disorder, Gender Dysphoria Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder. See
6
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 7 of 35 PageID 162
Report of Dr. Robert E. Cohen (Crim. Doc. 49-4). Leslie’s attorney, Mr.
Rosenblum, acknowledged the gravity of the crime, but argued in mitigation
that Leslie suffered from a psychological disorder, that Leslie wanted and was
undergoing professional treatment, and that Leslie was uniquely forthcoming
with the psychologist and with investigators. Sentencing Memorandum (Crim.
Doc. 49); Sentencing Tr. at 11–18. The Court also heard a statement from
Leslie’s mother, a statement in allocution by Leslie, and impact statements by
two family members of the victims. Sentencing Tr. at 19–21, 39–42. The
government, while arguing that the crime deserved a severe sentence,
suggested that a below-guidelines sentence of 50 years’ imprisonment (but no
less) might be warranted considering Leslie’s cooperation. Id. at 42–43. Based
on the egregious facts of the crimes, the harm to the victims, and the need to
protect the public, the Court sentenced Leslie to a term of 720 months in prison,
followed by a lifetime term of supervised release. Sentencing Tr. at 43–47;
Judgment (Crim. Doc. 53).
Meanwhile, Leslie was convicted in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee of one count of engaging in a child exploitation
enterprise. M.D. Tenn. Judgment (Civ. Doc. 20-2). He was sentenced to a term
of 360 months in prison, running concurrently with the sentence in this case.
Id. That sentence is not under challenge here.
7
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 8 of 35 PageID 163
Leslie appealed his sentence in this case. His appellate attorney filed a
motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Leslie moved for the appointment of new appellate counsel, which the Eleventh
Circuit denied. United States v. Leslie, 742 F. App’x 487, 488 (11th Cir. 2018).
After an independent review of the record, the court determined there were no
arguable issues of merit and affirmed Leslie’s convictions and sentence. Id.
These § 2255 proceedings timely followed.
II.
Discussion
Under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, a person in federal
custody may move to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Section 2255
permits collateral relief on four grounds: (1) the sentence was imposed in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the court lacked
jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the imposed sentence exceeded the
maximum authorized by law; or (4) the imposed sentence is otherwise subject
to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C § 2255(a) (2008). Only jurisdictional claims,
constitutional claims, and claims of error that are so fundamentally defective
as to cause a complete miscarriage of justice warrant relief through collateral
attack. United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 184–86 (1979); Spencer v.
United States, 773 F.3d 1132, 1138 (11th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (“[A] district court
lacks the authority to review the alleged error unless the claimed error
8
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 9 of 35 PageID 164
constitute[s] a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete
miscarriage of justice.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). A petitioner’s claim
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth
Amendment is properly brought in a collateral proceeding under § 2255.
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003).
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a § 2255 petitioner must
establish both: (1) that his counsel’s conduct amounted to constitutionally
deficient performance, and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced
his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984). In
determining whether counsel performed deficiently, the Court adheres to the
standard of reasonably effective assistance. Weeks v. Jones, 26 F.3d 1030, 1036
(11th Cir. 1994) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688). The petitioner must show,
given all the circumstances, that counsel’s performance fell outside the “wide
range of professionally competent assistance.” Scott v. United States, 890 F.3d
1239, 1258 (11th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In
other
words,
“[t]he
standard
for
effective
assistance
of
counsel
is
reasonableness, not perfection.” Brewster v. Hetzel, 913 F.3d 1042, 1056 (11th
Cir. 2019) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). To show that counsel’s deficient
performance prejudiced the defense, the petitioner must show a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding would have
been different. Martin v. United States, 949 F.3d 662, 667 (11th Cir. 2020)
9
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 10 of 35 PageID 165
(citation omitted). In determining whether a petitioner has met the two prongs
of deficient performance and prejudice, the Court considers the totality of the
evidence. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695. Because both prongs are necessary, “there
is no reason for a court… to approach the inquiry in the same order or even to
address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient
showing on one.” Id. at 697.
A § 2255 movant “bears the burden to prove the claims in his § 2255
motion.” Rivers v. United States, 777 F.3d 1306, 1316 (11th Cir. 2015); see also
Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215, 1221–23 (11th Cir. 2017). If “‘the
evidence does not clearly explain what happened … the party with the burden
loses.’” Beeman, 871 F.3d at 1225 (quoting Romine v. Head, 253 F.3d 1349, 1357
(11th Cir. 2001)). A § 2255 movant is not entitled to a hearing, much less relief,
“when his claims are merely conclusory allegations unsupported by specifics or
contentions that in the face of the record are wholly incredible.” Tejada v.
Dugger, 941 F.2d 1551, 1559 (11th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).
A. Ground One
Leslie first alleges that Mr. Rosenblum gave ineffective assistance “by
advising Movant to enter into a proffer agreement when the proffer agreement
provided Movant with absolutely no protections and exposed Movant to
additional crimes and increased penalties.” Sec. Am. § 2255 Mtn. at 4. The
agreement disadvantaged him, Leslie claims, because the proffer agreement (1)
10
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 11 of 35 PageID 166
exempted from use immunity the very crimes for which he was being
interviewed, (2) required Leslie to turn over the passwords to his encrypted
devices, and (3) did not allow Leslie to earn a motion for a substantial assistance
reduction because the only person Leslie could have provided information
about––Patrick Dane Falte––had already given authorities in Tennessee
incriminating information about himself and Leslie. Leslie asserts that “[t]he
fact that no good would come from the proffer sessions was clear upon a close
reading of the discovery and speaking with Movant.” Movant’s Ex. 1 at 1 n.2.
Leslie contends he was prejudiced because (1) inculpatory information he
gave during the proffer was used against him at sentencing in the Middle
District of Tennessee, and (2) the government here “referred to evidence [at
sentencing] that was made available to the government solely through Movant’s
proffer sessions,” which was allowed under the proffer agreement because of the
exemption for “crimes of violence.” Id. at 1.
The record does not support Leslie’s claim of ineffective assistance. 5 On
record is a signed copy of the proffer agreement, which was signed by Leslie, his
attorney, counsel for the government, and one of the case agents. Signed Proffer
Agreement (Civ. Doc. 20-1). Leslie affirmed he had read the entire agreement,
The Court assumes, for the sake of discussion, that Mr. Rosenblum did not advise
Leslie against accepting the proffer agreement. But if Leslie’s discussions with Dr. Cohen offer
any indication, Leslie may have wanted to speak to the government about his conduct –
regardless of counsel’s advice for or against it – because he had a guilty conscience and was
eager to “get it off [his] chest.” See Dr. Cohen’s Report (Crim. Doc. 49-4) p. 4.
5
11
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 12 of 35 PageID 167
discussed it with his attorney, had it fully explained to him by his attorney, and
voluntarily and knowingly accepted its terms. Id. p. 4. Likewise, Leslie’s
attorney, Mr. Rosenblum, affirmed that he had discussed the agreement with
Leslie, explained its terms to him, and, to the best of his knowledge, Leslie
accepted its terms knowingly and voluntarily. Id. Here, Leslie does not allege
that Mr. Rosenblum failed to accurately and completely explain the proffer
agreement, or that Leslie did not understand the terms of the agreement. See
Sec. Am. § 2255 Mtn. at 4; Movant’s Ex. 1 at 1. 6 Nor does he allege that he was
forced or coerced into accepting the proffer agreement. See id. And Leslie does
not allege that, if not for the proffer, he would have insisted on going to trial
instead of pleading guilty. See id. He simply second-guesses the wisdom of the
proffer agreement. But Leslie, a sophisticated criminal, cannot reasonably
blame counsel for his own knowing and voluntary decision to agree to the proffer
now that he has buyer’s remorse. See Yick Man Mui v. United States, 614 F.3d
50, 57 (2d Cir. 2010) (ineffective assistance claims “are quite often the law’s
equivalent of ‘buyer’s remorse’ or ‘Monday morning quarterbacking’ and can be
In his Reply brief, Leslie alleges for the first time that counsel advised him “that the
information provided to the government [in the proffer] would not be used against him at trial
or sentencing.” Reply at 1. A § 2255 movant may not raise new allegations in a reply to the
government’s response. Oliveiri v. United States, 717 F. App’x 966, 967 (11th Cir. 2018). Leslie
also failed to request leave to amend his Second Amended § 2255 Motion to add such an
allegation.
6
12
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 13 of 35 PageID 168
quickly resolved. Decisions by criminal defense counsel are often choices among
bad alternatives that are only rarely shown to be” ineffective).
Nor is it true that the proffer agreement offered Leslie no benefits and no
protections. Under the proffer agreement, Leslie agreed to talk to the
government about federal crimes “involving, but not necessarily limited to,
violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2251, 2251A, and 2252, et seq.” Id. p. 1. Subject
to some exceptions, the agreement promised that “no statements provided by
[Leslie or his attorney] during the interview session will be admissible against
[Leslie] in the government’s case-in-chief or at sentencing.” Id. A couple of
exceptions were that the government could make derivative use of Leslie’s
statements and that the government would “remain free to discharge its duty
to the court by informing the court of any information [Leslie gave],” provided
that the Court would “be notified that such information was obtained pursuant
to the grant of use immunity.” Id. p. 2. But the main exception––and the one
Leslie raises here––was that use immunity would “not extend to crimes of
violence,” which included violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2245, 2251, 2251A,
and 2252A(g), and “the rape or sexual abuse of a minor.” Id. p. 3. Leslie says
this exemption was coextensive with the subject matter of the interview,
effectively stripping Leslie of any protections. That is untrue. As the agreement
reflects, Leslie agreed to speak to the government about federal crimes
“involving, but not necessarily limited to, violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2251,
13
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 14 of 35 PageID 169
2251A, and 2252, et seq.” Id. p. 1 (emphasis added). Section 2252, for example,
which encompasses the receipt, distribution, and possession of child
pornography, was a topic of the interview that was not exempt from use
immunity. Indeed, even though the information Leslie gave during the proffer
(including the passwords to his devices) led to evidence that he possessed 33,000
images of child pornography and had abused or photographed four other
children, the government never sought a superseding indictment to bring
additional charges based on that evidence.
Plus, sitting for the proffer offered potential benefits beyond the hope of
gaining a substantial assistance motion under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Leslie’s
cooperation with law enforcement could reflect positively on his “history and
characteristics” for sentencing purposes, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and persuade
the Court of Leslie’s remorse and desire to make amends––to the extent making
amends was possible. Thus, even without the potential for a 5K1.1 motion, a
competent attorney could have reasonably advised Leslie to sit for the proffer.
See Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
(“[B]ecause counsel's conduct is presumed reasonable, for a petitioner to show
that the conduct was unreasonable, a petitioner must establish that no
competent counsel would have taken the action that his counsel did take.”
(emphasis added)).
14
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 15 of 35 PageID 170
And in some respects, this strategy achieved the desired effect. At
sentencing, Mr. Rosenblum argued that Leslie’s cooperation had proven to be
“extremely valuable to law enforcement” and was a mitigating factor.
Sentencing Memorandum (Crim. Doc. 49) at 4; Sentencing Tr. at 11–18. The
Court itself recognized Leslie’s “candor and openness” in the proffer and stated
it had “taken particular note of that.” Sentencing Tr. at 13. Even the
government described Leslie’s cooperation as a “laudable” effort that “certainly
should be considered by this Court,” id. at 33–34, and in recognition of that,
suggested that a below-guidelines sentence of 50 years’ imprisonment (but no
less) could be appropriate, id. at 42–43. In the end, Leslie’s cooperation was not
enough to convince the Court to sentence him to less than 720 months’
imprisonment. But the fact that the defense’s strategy “ultimately proved to be
unsuccessful [does not] demonstrate ineffectiveness.” Chandler, 218 F.3d at
1314. While it is tempting to judge an attorney’s performance through the
“distorting” lens of hindsight, “counsel’s perspective at the time” of the
challenged action is what matters. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Judged through
that lens, Mr. Rosenblum’s performance was not objectively unreasonable.
Nor has Leslie established prejudice. To the extent Leslie argues that the
information he provided during the proffer was used against him at sentencing
in the Tennessee case, that claim goes to his sentence in that case, not this one.
Besides, Leslie’s 360-month sentence in the Tennessee case runs concurrently
15
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 16 of 35 PageID 171
with his sentence here, so even if the information provided during the proffer
increased his sentence in the Tennessee case, it did not affect his overall
sentence. To the extent Leslie argues that the government used information he
gave during the proffer against him at sentencing in this case (which he does
not contend violated the proffer agreement), that was a risk he knowingly and
voluntarily assumed. In any event, Leslie fails to show a reasonable probability
that his sentence would have been any lower even if proffer-derived information
had never been introduced at sentencing. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. The
facts of the charged crimes themselves––and the facts he admitted in connection
with his guilty pleas––were enough to support the guidelines calculation, see
PSR ¶¶ 31–55, and the Court’s 720-month sentence.
As a result, Leslie fails to show that counsel’s performance was deficient
or prejudicial under Strickland. Relief on Ground One is due to be denied.
B. Ground Two
Leslie alleges that Mr. Rosenblum gave ineffective assistance by filing the
Confidential Psychological Evaluation and Report of Dr. Robert E. Cohen, a
licensed psychologist, as an exhibit to the sentencing memorandum. Sec. Am. §
2255 Mtn. at 5; Movant’s Ex. 1 at 2–3. Leslie alleges that the report contained
information that “was very harmful to Movant.” Sec. Am. § 2255 Mtn. at 5.
Leslie concedes that “information about Movant’s thoughts and behaviors may
have been important and necessary to obtain an understanding of Movant’s
16
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 17 of 35 PageID 172
diagnosis and his behavioral and psychological functioning.” Id. But, he argues,
the “raw statements” presented in the report “only served to paint him as a
dangerous ‘pervert’ who had extensive criminal activity with children.” Id. He
asserts that the report “emphasized the need to sentence Movant to a maximum
available sentence rather than mitigate his prison time.” Id. According to Leslie,
“the only benefit [the report] added to the case was that the Movant had an
official diagnosis of pedophilia, when the facts of the case made that perfectly
clear without the report.” Movant’s Ex. 1 at 3.
Dr. Cohen’s report reflected that Leslie enjoyed wearing children’s
underwear and diapers when he was between 8 and 12 years old, that he began
watching child pornography and engaging in “peeping tom” activities between
the ages of 10 and 11, and that he first fondled an infant when he was 13 years
old (among other deviant sexual interests). Dr. Cohen’s Report p. 2. The report
said that Leslie freely admitted to abusing other children and felt guilty about
abusing children under age 5, but that he felt less bad about having sex with
children aged 10 years and older because he thought that was more consensual.
Id. p. 3. Leslie told Dr. Cohen he was happy to talk to him about these things
and “get it off [his] chest,” and that he felt remorse about the physical harm to
the children. Id. p. 4. Dr. Cohen reported that Leslie appeared to be earnest and
showed no signs of manipulation. Id. Dr. Cohen diagnosed Leslie with
17
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 18 of 35 PageID 173
Pedophilic Disorder, Gender Dysphoria Disorder, and Major Depressive
Disorder. Id. p. 8.
Mr. Rosenblum argued that Dr. Cohen’s report showed that Leslie
suffered from a “sickness” that required treatment, that Leslie was eager to
receive treatment, and that Leslie had wanted treatment since he was younger
but did not know how to ask for help. Sentencing Memorandum at 2–4, 7;
Sentencing Tr. at 11–18. The government countered that the report revealed
more inculpatory information than exculpatory information, failed to address
Leslie’s risk of recidivism, and indicated that Leslie’s pedophilia was “so deep
seated, this defendant can never be trusted around children again, ever.”
Sentencing Tr. at 35–38. The Court acknowledged having read Dr. Cohen’s
report “with much interest” and thanked Mr. Rosenblum for sharing it with the
Court. Id. at 15–16. But when explaining the sentence, the Court referred to the
report only in rejecting the argument that Leslie could not have controlled his
actions and could not have sought treatment earlier:
I’m required to consider whether there are any – whether there’s
anything that appropriately should suggest a tempering, if you will, of
the completeness of the punishment as it relates to the seriousness of the
offense.
And I’ll tell you, one thing that’s been offered, which is Mr. Leslie’s
willingness to acknowledge his proclivities and to suggest that he could
not do anything about them – despite the psychologist’s argument, Mr.
Rosenblum, I don’t believe it.
18
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 19 of 35 PageID 174
Anyone who is sophisticated enough to hide this conduct in the
ways that your client hid this conduct is smart enough, resourceful
enough to find help if he truly wanted it. And had he found help, we
wouldn’t be here.
Id. at 44. But the Court did not draw from the inculpatory aspects of Dr. Cohen’s
report in explaining the 720-month sentence. See id. at 43–47.
Leslie’s allegations fail to show that Mr. Rosenblum’s decision to submit
Dr. Cohen’s report was deficient under Strickland. To be sure, Dr. Cohen’s
report contained a mix of potentially harmful and potentially helpful
information. On one hand, the report reflected that Leslie had engaged in
uncharged sex crimes against children and that he harbored deep-seated
deviant sexual interests. On the other hand, the very fact that Leslie developed
extreme sexual proclivities at a young age reflected that he had a genuine
psychological disorder. A reasonable attorney could have gone either way in
deciding whether to submit Dr. Cohen’s report for consideration at sentencing.
Mr. Rosenblum could have reasonably concluded that the report would show
that (1) Leslie’s actions stemmed from a psychological illness, and (2) Leslie was
earnest about pursuing treatment. See Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1315 (because
assessing the reasonableness of counsel’s performance is an objective inquiry,
if a court could conceive of reasonable strategic motives for counsel’s actions,
counsel’s performance is not deficient (citing United States v. Fortson, 194 F.3d
730, 736 (6th Cir. 1999))). Leslie fails to show that “no competent counsel” would
19
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 20 of 35 PageID 175
have submitted Dr. Cohen’s report. Id. Thus, he has not shown that Mr.
Rosenblum’s performance was objectively unreasonable.
Nor has Leslie shown that, had Mr. Rosenblum not submitted Dr. Cohen’s
report, there is a reasonable probability his sentence would have been any
lower. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. The Court did not cite the inculpatory
aspects of the report in explaining why it imposed a 720-month sentence. While
the Court referred to “the horror associated with the crime committed,” “the
seriousness of the offense,” and the “reprehensible, unimaginable, [and]
unbearable” nature of the crime, Sentencing Tr. at 43, these observations were
supported by the facts of the admitted crimes themselves, without regard to the
contents of Dr. Cohen’s report. Thus, Leslie fails to establish prejudice under
Strickland. Relief on Ground Two is due to be denied.
C. Ground Three
Leslie alleges that Mr. Rosenblum was ineffective in connection with
advising him about the plea agreement. Sec. Am. § 2255 Mtn. at 7; Movant’s
Ex. 1 at 4. This claim can be divided into two parts. First, he alleges that Mr.
Rosenblum was ineffective for advising him to accept a plea agreement in which
Leslie waived all “meaningful appeal rights” “without receiving any
20
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 21 of 35 PageID 176
consideration in return.” Sec. Am. § 2255 Mtn. at 7. 7 Second, he alleges that
counsel misadvised him about the potential sentence, telling him he would
receive “an effective life sentence” if he did not accept the plea agreement, even
though the cumulative statutory maximum was 60 years in prison. Id. He also
alleges that counsel failed to review the guidelines calculation with him or give
him any supporting documentation. Id.; see also Movant’s Ex. 1 at 4.
Leslie does not allege that, but for counsel’s purported errors, he would
not have pled guilty and would have gone to trial. Instead, he alleges only that
“[i]t clearly would have been in Movant’s best interest to plead guilty without
the limitations of a Plea Agreement. Had Movant been advised correctly, he
would not have chosen to enter into the agreement.” Movant’s Ex. 1 at 4.
In Hill v. Lockhart, the Supreme Court held “that the two-part Strickland
v. Washington test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective
assistance of counsel.” 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985). To succeed on a claim that a
guilty plea was obtained as the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, a §
2255 movant must show that (1) the advice he received from counsel “fell below
an objective standard of reasonableness,” id. at 57, and (2) “there is a reasonable
Under the Plea Agreement, Leslie waived the right to appeal his sentence except under
four circumstances: (1) the sentence exceeded the guidelines range as determined by the
Court, (2) the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum, (3) the sentence violated the Eighth
Amendment, or (4) the government exercised its right to appeal the sentence. See Plea
Agreement at 14–15. The Court reviewed the sentence-appeal waiver during the plea colloquy,
and Leslie stated that he knowingly and voluntarily accepted it. Plea Tr. at 21–22.
7
21
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 22 of 35 PageID 177
probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and
would have insisted on going to trial,” id. at 59.
Leslie’s allegations do not support granting relief. He first asserts that
Mr. Rosenblum was ineffective for advising him to accept a plea agreement in
which he received no consideration for waiving all “meaningful appeal rights.”
Sec. Am. § 2255 Mtn. at 7. Specifically, he alleges that two of the plea
agreement’s purported benefits––the government’s promise not to charge Leslie
with additional crimes in the Middle District of Florida and the government’s
promise to consider filing a § 5K1.1 motion––were illusory. See Movant’s Ex. 1
at 4. That is so, Leslie argues, because (1) “based on Movant’s double jeopardy
right, the government would have had to have charged related criminal
behavior[] in the [Middle District of Florida] in the same indictment,” and (2)
“Movant was not able to provide the government with enough information to
prosecute other defendants for crimes.” Id. Yet despite his dissatisfaction with
the plea agreement, Leslie does not allege that he would not have pled guilty
and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill, 474 U.S. at 58–59; see also
Movant’s Ex. 1 at 4. Leslie also fails to say why his sentence would have been
lower had he pled guilty without the agreement.
The record also contradicts Leslie’s allegations. For one, the purportedly
illusory benefits were not the only benefits of the Plea Agreement. The
government also promised (1) to support a two-level guidelines reduction for
22
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 23 of 35 PageID 178
acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) and (2) to support an
additional one-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b). Plea Agreement at 4–5. Leslie
received the benefit of these guidelines reductions. PSR ¶¶ 56–57.
For another, the agreement’s benefits were not illusory. The government
promised that if the Court accepted the agreement, the United States Attorney’s
Office would not charge Leslie with any other federal crimes known to the office
at the time of the agreement and that were related to the conduct giving rise to
the agreement. Plea Agreement at 3. Contrary to Leslie’s suggestion that his
“double jeopardy right” precluded the government from charging him with
additional crimes anyway, that is false. Under the Fifth Amendment’s Double
Jeopardy Clause, which protects a criminal defendant from being subjected to
multiple prosecutions for the same offense, “[j]eopardy attaches when the jury
is empaneled or sworn.” United States v. Therve, 764 F.3d 1293, 1298 (11th Cir.
2014) (citation omitted). Jeopardy had not attached when Leslie accepted the
plea agreement because no jury had been empaneled or sworn. Thus, the
government remained free to seek a superseding indictment. If what Leslie
means instead is that additional charges would have been multiplicitous, that
too is false. “An indictment is multiplicitous if it charges a single offense in more
than one count. A multiplicitous indictment violates double jeopardy principles
by giving the jury more than one opportunity to convict the defendant for the
same offense.” United States v. Stapleton, 39 F.4th 1320, 1328 (11th Cir. 2022)
23
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 24 of 35 PageID 179
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Given that Leslie admitted
during his proffer to sexually abusing three other children and photographing
a fourth, and law enforcement forensically discovered 33,000 images of child
pornography on his devices, Leslie fails to show that the government could not
have lawfully charged him with other crimes. Thus, the promise of no additional
charges was not illusory. As for the government’s promise to consider whether
to file a substantial assistance motion, courts have held that the prosecutorial
discretion inherent in such promises does not invalidate a plea bargain. See,
e.g., United States v. Kilcrease, 665 F.3d 924, 928 (7th Cir. 2012) (collecting
cases). And, because Leslie had been an administrator of a website that hosted
child pornography, PSR ¶ 8, Leslie and his attorney could have reasonably
believed that Leslie might be able to offer information worthy of a substantial
assistance motion. In short, the Plea Agreement contained material, nonillusory benefits, and the Court cannot say it was objectively unreasonable for
Mr. Rosenblum to have advised Leslie to accept it.
Also, as to the first part of this claim, Leslie does not allege that he did
not understand the benefits and risks of the Plea Agreement––only that it was
a bad bargain. But Leslie affirmed under oath that he had read and understood
the entire plea agreement and discussed it with his attorney, and that he
voluntarily accepted its terms. Plea Tr. at 17–23; see also id. at 29–31. The
Court will not “allow an otherwise valid plea agreement to be undone because
24
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 25 of 35 PageID 180
the defendant did not obtain ‘enough’ of a benefit,” as that “would undermine
the efficacy of such agreements by permitting the defendant to obtain the
benefit of the bargain without suffering the detriment.” United States v.
Williams, 184 F.3d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 1999).
In the second part of this claim, Leslie alleges that Mr. Rosenblum
misadvised him that he was facing an “effective life sentence” if he did not
accept the plea agreement, and that Mr. Rosenblum failed to review the
guidelines calculations with him before he pled guilty. Sec. Am. § 2255 Mtn. at
7; Movant’s Ex. 1 at 4. For a 22-year-old defendant facing a cumulative
maximum sentence of 60 years in prison, whose guilt was not in serious doubt,
the Court cannot say it would have been inaccurate to advise Leslie he was
facing an “effective life sentence” if he were convicted at trial.
Further, even assuming the truth of these allegations and that counsel
was deficient, Leslie fails to show that the misadvice prejudiced him under Hill
and Strickland. The Court informed Leslie at arraignment of the penalties the
charges entailed (Crim. Doc. 16, Minute Entry of Arraignment), i.e., a statutory
maximum term of 30 years in prison for each count, totaling 60 years. The Plea
Agreement also advised Leslie that the cumulative maximum penalty was 60
years in prison. See Plea Agreement at 1–2. And at the change-of-plea colloquy,
the Court reminded Leslie that the maximum statutory penalty was 60 years
in prison, Plea Tr. at 14–15, which Leslie affirmed he understood, id. at 16.
25
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 26 of 35 PageID 181
Because the Court “itself explained to [Leslie]—in detail—the consequences of
the plea agreement, range of punishment, and sentencing contingencies before
accepting [Leslie’s] guilty plea …, any failure on the part of [Leslie’s] counsel to
clearly explain the possible punishment was cured by the district court.” United
States v. Wilson, 245 F. App’x 10, 12 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Plea Tr. at 9–23.
About Mr. Rosenblum’s purported failure to review the guidelines
calculations with Leslie, Sec. Am. § 2255 Mtn. at 7, Leslie’s sworn statements
at the plea colloquy refute any allegation of deficient performance or prejudice.
The Court addressed Leslie:
THE COURT:
The federal sentencing guidelines apply to your case.
Have you discussed the sentencing guidelines with
your attorney?
[LESLIE]:
Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
I won’t go into too much detail about the guidelines
since you’ve discussed them with your lawyer, but I
do have to make sure you understand certain things
about how the sentencing process works.
The Court will not be able to determine your
guideline sentence until after the presentence report
has been completed by the probation office.
After it’s been determined what guidelines apply to
your case, the district judge still has the authority to
impose a sentence that is either more severe or less
severe than the sentenced called for by the guidelines. So the guidelines are only advisory. The district
judge can impose any sentence up to the maximum
permitted by law.
26
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 27 of 35 PageID 182
In determining a sentence, the district judge is
obligated to calculate the guideline range and to
consider that range and also consider possible
departures under the guidelines and other
sentencing factors that are listed in a statute, 18 U.S.
Code, Section 3553(a).
Also, under some circumstances the government may
have the right to appeal any sentence that the district
judge imposes and ask a higher court to impose a
more severe sentence.
***
So as we sit here today, nobody can tell you what your
sentence is going to be. The sentence imposed could
be different than any estimated sentence by your
attorney or anyone else has given you.
It could be more severe than you expect, but even if
that happens, you’ll still be bound by your guilty plea
and will not have the right to withdraw it.
Do you understand that?
[LESLIE]:
Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
And do you understand all the things I’ve just
explained about sentencing?
[LESLIE]:
Yes, sir.
Plea Tr. at 11–13. And as noted above, Leslie understood that the maximum
potential penalty was 60 years in prison. Id. at 15–16. “[W]hen a defendant
makes statements under oath at a plea colloquy, he bears a heavy burden to
show his statements were false.” United States v. Rogers, 848 F.2d 166, 168
(11th Cir. 1988). Leslie fails to meet that burden here.
27
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 28 of 35 PageID 183
Thus, the record shows that when Leslie pled guilty, he accepted the
possibility the Court could sentence him to 60 years in prison – the same
sentence he ultimately received. Even at the sentencing hearing, after learning
that his guidelines range was 60 years in prison, Leslie expressed no desire to
withdraw his guilty plea, stating instead that he “deserve[d] 60 years and
more.” Sentencing Tr. at 20. As a result, he cannot show that had Mr.
Rosenblum reviewed his guidelines calculations with him beforehand, there is
a reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty but would have insisted
on going to trial. Hill, 474 U.S. at 58–59.
For all of the above reasons, relief on Ground Three is due to be denied.
D. Ground Four
Leslie alleges that Mr. Rosenblum gave ineffective assistance by failing
to review the addendum to the PSR with him before sentencing, and failed to
present “any witnesses or evidence at his sentencing hearing.” Sec. Am. § 2255
Mtn. at 8. He states that “Movant provided counsel with many corrections to
the [PSR],” but that “[e]ven with the noted objections and corrections, some
inaccuracies remained in the [PSR].” Id.
This claim does not merit relief because it consists of conclusory
allegations. Leslie does not describe what points or arguments counsel should
have raised based on the addendum to the PSR. He does not identify what
28
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 29 of 35 PageID 184
witnesses counsel should have called, describe what they would have testified,
or substantiate (through affidavits or otherwise) that the missing witnesses
would have offered favorable testimony. See Johnson v. Alabama, 256 F.3d
1156, 1187 (11th Cir. 2001) (offering “only speculation that the missing
witnesses would have been helpful … is insufficient to carry the burden of a
habeas corpus petitioner.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Nor
does Leslie specify what objections or corrections to the PSR counsel should
have raised. Moreover, Leslie affirmed at the sentencing hearing that he had
reviewed the PSR with Mr. Rosenblum and that counsel had answered all of his
questions. Sentencing Tr. at 4. Because “conclusory allegations unsupported by
specifics” are not enough to carry the burden of a habeas petitioner, Leslie is
not entitled to relief on this ground. Tejada, 941 F.2d at 1559.
E. Ground Five
Next, Leslie alleges that counsel gave ineffective assistance by “not
securing any benefits for the Movant” after he proffered for the government and
disclosed incriminating information that was used against him at sentencing.
Movant’s Ex. 1 at 5. He alleges that counsel should have negotiated “a more
favorable plea agreement or a recommendation by the government of a
sentencing reduction … at the sentencing hearing.” Id.
29
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 30 of 35 PageID 185
The record contradicts this claim. As discussed under Ground Three, the
Plea Agreement contained three material benefits: (1) the government’s
promise not to bring additional charges against Leslie in the Middle District of
Florida, (2) the government’s promise to support a three-level guidelines
reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and (3) the government’s promise to
consider moving for a substantial assistance reduction. Plea Agreement at 3, 4–
7. Because of Leslie’s proffer, the government recommended that a belowguidelines sentence of 50 years’ imprisonment (but no less) might be warranted.
Sentencing Tr. at 42–43.
Leslie fails to show that Mr. Rosenblum’s negotiation of the plea
agreement was objectively unreasonable. Strickland affords attorneys wide
latitude in the plea bargaining process because “the potential for the distortions
and imbalance that can inhere in a hindsight perspective may become all too
real. The art of negotiation is at least as nuanced as the art of trial advocacy
and it presents questions farther removed from immediate judicial
supervision.” Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115, 125 (2011). Further, “[t]he prospect
that a plea deal will afterwards be unraveled when a court second-guesses
counsel’s decisions while failing to accord the latitude Strickland mandates …
could lead prosecutors to forgo plea bargains that would benefit defendants, a
result favorable to no one.” Id. Judging Mr. Rosenblum’s performance based on
his “perspective at the time,” free from the distorting effects of hindsight,
30
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 31 of 35 PageID 186
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, it was not objectively unreasonable for him to
advise Leslie to accept the current plea agreement.
Nor has Leslie established prejudice under Hill and Strickland. He does
not allege in Ground Five that he did not knowingly and voluntarily accept the
terms of the plea agreement or the proffer agreement. Rather, he complains
that his attorney did not negotiate a better plea bargain, considering his proffer.
But Leslie’s complaint assumes that a better plea bargain was attainable. He
points to no facts to support a conclusion that the government was amenable to
a plea agreement on terms more favorable to Leslie. Thus, Leslie fails to show
a reasonable probability that, even had counsel tried to negotiate a better plea
bargain, a more favorable agreement would have been presented to and
accepted by the Court. Cf. Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 164 (2010) (where an
attorney’s error led a defendant to reject a plea deal and go to trial, “a defendant
must show that but for the ineffective advice of counsel there is a reasonable
probability that the plea offer would have been presented to the court …, that
the court would have accepted its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or
both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under the
judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed.”). Because Leslie fails to
establish deficient performance or prejudice, he is not entitled to relief on
Ground Five.
31
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 32 of 35 PageID 187
F. Ground Six
Finally, Leslie argues that his sentence “is disproportionate when
compared to the facts of the case” and amounts to “cruel and unusual
punishment” under the Eighth Amendment. Movant’s Ex. 1 at 6. He
remarkably asserts that “upon further contemplation, the facts of the case are
not as horrifying as one might imagine.” Id. Leslie thinks that is so because the
children he raped or photographed were not physically harmed and they were
too young to form memories of the abuse. Id.
Leslie procedurally defaulted this claim because he failed to raise it on
direct appeal. “Courts have long and consistently affirmed that a collateral
challenge, such as a § 2255 motion, may not be a surrogate for a direct appeal.”
Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
“Under the procedural default rule, a defendant generally must advance an
available challenge to a criminal conviction or sentence on direct appeal,”
including constitutional claims, “or else the defendant is barred from presenting
that claim in a § 2255 proceeding.” Id. at 1234 (citations omitted). “A defendant
can avoid a procedural bar only by establishing one of two exceptions to the
procedural default rule.” Id. The first is the cause-and-prejudice exception,
under which “a § 2255 movant can avoid application of the procedural default
bar by ‘show[ing] cause for not raising the claim of error on direct appeal and
32
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 33 of 35 PageID 188
actual prejudice from the alleged error.’” McKay v. United States, 657 F.3d
1190, 1196 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Lynn, 365 F.3d at 1234). The second
exception is actual innocence, under which “a movant’s procedural default is
excused if he can show that he is actually innocent either of the crime of
conviction or, in the capital sentencing context, of the sentence itself.” McKay,
657 F.3d at 1196.
In his Reply brief, Leslie disclaims any reliance on the actual innocence
exception. Reply at 6. But, Leslie contends, he can satisfy the cause-andprejudice exception because his federal public defender filed an Anders brief on
direct appeal. Id. at 5.
The ineffective assistance of appellate counsel may constitute cause to
excuse a procedural default. United States v. Nyhuis, 211 F.3d 1340, 1344 (11th
Cir. 2000). However, Leslie does not show that appellate counsel’s failure to
challenge
the
constitutionality
of
Leslie’s
sentence
was
objectively
unreasonable or that, had counsel done so, there is a reasonable probability the
Eleventh Circuit would have vacated Leslie’s sentence and remanded for
resentencing. See Dell v. United States, 710 F.3d 1267, 1273 (11th Cir. 2013)
(stating the elements of a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel).
Under the Eighth Amendment, a noncapital sentence may be excessive if it is
“grossly disproportionate to the offense committed.” United States v. Johnson,
451 F.3d 1239, 1243 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations marks and citation
33
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 34 of 35 PageID 189
omitted). But because of Congress’ broad authority to set the types and limits
of punishments for crimes, id. at 1242–43, “a sentence within the statutory
limits generally does not violate the Eighth Amendment,” id. at 1243. In
Johnson, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a 140-year maximum sentence for a
repeat-offender convicted of two counts of producing child pornography and one
count of distributing child pornography. Id. at 1242–44. Given that, Leslie fails
to show that his own 60-year sentence for two counts of producing child
pornography, where he also admitted to sexually abusing at least one child, was
“grossly disproportionate to the offense committed.” Thus, Leslie fails to
establish cause for or actual prejudice resulting from appellate counsel’s failure
to challenge Leslie’s sentence under the Eighth Amendment.
Thus, relief on Ground Six is due to be denied.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, and in accordance with the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Proceedings, it is ORDERED:
1. Petitioner Andrew Ryan Leslie’s Second Amended Motion Under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Civ. Doc. 12) is
DENIED.
2. The Clerk will enter judgment for the United States and against Leslie,
and close the file.
34
Case 3:19-cv-01300-BJD-JBT Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 35 of 35 PageID 190
3. If Leslie appeals the denial of the petition, the Court denies a certificate
of appealability (COA). 8 Because this Court has determined that a COA
is not warranted, the Clerk shall terminate from the pending motions
report any motion to proceed on appeal as a pauper that may be filed
in this case. Such termination will serve as a denial of the motion.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 12th day of
September, 2022.
lc 19
Copies:
Counsel of record
Petitioner
This Court should issue a COA only if a petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make this substantial showing,
Petitioner “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274,
282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that “the issues presented
were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,’” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 335-36 (2003) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). Upon due
consideration, this Court finds that a COA is not warranted.
8
35
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?