Arguelles v. USA

Filing 1

OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 56 in 1:21-cr-62) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Holly A Brady on 10/18/2023. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (sej)

USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cv-00140-HAB document 1 filed 10/18/23 page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
EDUARDO A. ARGUELLES, JR.

)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 1:21-CR-62-HAB

OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to set aside his 180-month
sentence for, among other things, possession of cocaine, fentanyl, and heroin with intent to
distribute. (ECF No. 56). Defendant asserts that, despite his guilty plea, he should not have been
convicted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime. The Government has made
several arguments in response, all of which the Court accepts. Defendant’s motion will be denied.
I.

Factual and Procedural Background
Following a long investigation, law enforcement executed a search warrant at Defendant’s

home in September 2021. Officers found all the trappings of drug distribution: more than 100
grams of heroin, 5,000 fentanyl pills, two loaded handguns, a drug ledger, cutting agents, digital
scales, a storage unit key, and $3,800 in cash. A later search of the storage unit uncovered more
than 6 kilograms of cocaine.
As a result, Defendant was indicted on three charges: possession with intent to distribute
under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime
under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and maintaining a drug involved premises under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2).
He pleaded guilty to all three counts without a plea agreement.
At his plea hearing, Defendant admitted that he had possessed a firearm in furtherance of
a drug-trafficking crime. He answered affirmatively to the Court’s question: “did you [possess]

USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cv-00140-HAB document 1 filed 10/18/23 page 2 of 5

the firearm in connection with your intent to distribute the controlled substances that you
described?” Defendant also agreed with the Government’s factual basis, which included expected
expert testimony that “guns are commonly used to protect drug dealers, their product and their
proceeds and that [Defendant’s] possession of the firearms was consistent with that use.”
In May 2022, Defendant was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment, which included 60
months on the gun count. Defendant did not appeal.
In April of this year, Defendant filed his § 2255 motion. He asserts one claim: “The
firearms were not in my possession at the time of my arrest.” (ECF No. 56 at 4). As supporting
facts, Defendant states, “the weapons were underneath my bed. I used to sell drugs from my
apartment.” (Id.). Defendant admits that he did not appeal the sentence or conviction. He claims
he did not appeal because his “attorney did not help” him. (Id.).
II.

Legal Analysis

A.

Defendant’s Claim is Procedurally Defaulted
A § 2255 motion must be granted when a defendant’s “sentence was imposed in violation

of the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. But a § 2255 motion does not
replace a direct appeal. See Barnickel v. United States, 113 F.3d 704, 706 (7th Cir. 1997). Claims
not raised on direct appeal are barred from collateral review unless upon review the petitioner
establishes that a failure to consider the issue would amount to a fundamental miscarriage of
justice. See Prewitt v. United States, 83 F.3d 812, 816 (7th Cir. 1996).
Defendant admits that he did not appeal his conviction or sentence. He has not raised any
recognized exception to the appeal requirement. Defendant’s § 2255 motion has been procedurally
defaulted and will be denied.

2

USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cv-00140-HAB document 1 filed 10/18/23 page 3 of 5

B.

Defendant’s Guilty Plea Forecloses Relief
Even if Defendant’s motion were not foreclosed by his failure to appeal, it is barred by his

guilty plea. Defendant admitted, under oath, that he possessed a firearm in connection with his
intent to distribute narcotics. Defendant wants to disavow this admission, but the Court “need not
let litigants contradict themselves so readily; a motion that can succeed only if the defendant
committed perjury at the plea proceedings may be rejected out of hand unless the defendant has a
compelling explanation for the contradiction.” United States v. Peterson, 414 F.3d 825, 827 (7th
Cir. 2005). “Entry of a plea is not some empty ceremony, and statements made to a federal judge
in open court are not trifles that defendants may elect to disregard. A defendant has no legal
entitlement to benefit by contradicting himself under oath. Thus when the judge credits the
defendant’s statements in open court, the game is over.” United States v. Stewart, 198 F.3d 984,
987 (7th Cir. 1999).
Defendant does not explain why the Court should accept the statements in his § 2255
motion while disregarding the statements in his plea hearing. For instance, he does not claim that
the guilty plea should be set aside because of ineffective assistance of counsel or because the plea
was involuntary. See United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989). Without any such claim,
the Court credits Defendant’s under-oath statements at the plea hearing. As the Seventh Circuit
stated, the game is over.
C.

Defendant’s Motion Fails on the Merits
Procedural issues aside, Defendant’s motion fails on the merits. Defendant appears to

believe that, since he was not carrying the firearm at the time of his arrest, he could not have
violated § 924(c). He is mistaken.

3

USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cv-00140-HAB document 1 filed 10/18/23 page 4 of 5

Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), a defendant cannot possess a weapon “in furtherance of”
a “drug trafficking crime.” See also United States v. Johnson, 916 F.3d 579, 588–89 (7th Cir.
2019). The “in furtherance of” element is fact intensive. United States v. Castillo, 406 F.3d 806,
815 (7th Cir. 2005). Factors to be considered include “the type of drug activity that is being
conducted, accessibility of the firearm, the type of the weapon, whether the weapon is stolen, the
status of the possession (legitimate or illegal), whether the gun is loaded, proximity to drugs or
drug profits, and the time and circumstances under which the gun is found.” United States v.
Brown, 724 F.3d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2013). No single factor determines the outcome; this inquiry
is holistic. See id. (“it can be easier to determine ‘furtherance’ by a holistic analysis than by
dissecting the issue into parts”).
Defendant admits in his motion that the firearm was under his bed, in an apartment where
he sold drugs. As established in the Presentence Investigation Report, Defendant’s bedroom also
contained the drug ledger, cutting agents, digital scales, and $3,700 in cash. (ECF No. 42 at 4).
The PSR also shows that Defendant admitted having the firearms to “protect him and the other
occupants of the house.” (Id. at 6). These facts are more than enough to sustain a conviction under
§ 924(c). See United States v. Perryman, 20 F.4th 1127, 1134–35 (7th Cir. 2021).
III.

Certificate of Appealability
Under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, the Court must “issue or

deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A
certificate of appealability may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Rule 11 of Rules Governing Section
2255 Proceedings. The substantial showing standard is met when “reasonable jurists could debate
whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner

4

USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cv-00140-HAB document 1 filed 10/18/23 page 5 of 5

or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotation marks omitted); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880,
893 & n.4 (1983). Because the Court finds that no reasonable jurist could conclude that Defendant
is entitled to relief, no certificate of appealability will be issued.
IV.

Conclusion
For these reasons, Defendant’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 56) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on October 18, 2023.
s/ Holly A. Brady
CHIEF JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5