Lundy v. USA
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. adopting #108 Report and Recommendations as to Andre Deshawn Lundy (2); 2. denying 97 Motion to Vacate (2255) as to Andre Deshawn Lundy (2); 3. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue ; 4. Judgment will be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 3/19/12.(SYD)cc: COR, mailed to pro se filer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
(at London)
ANDRE D. LUNDY,
Petitioner/Defendant,
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent/Plaintiff.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 6: 011-7168-DCR
Criminal Action No. 6: 08-02-DCR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
*** *** *** ***
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Petitioner/Defendant Andre D.
Lundy’s pro se motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
[Record No. 97] Consistent with local practice, this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Magistrate Judge Wier filed his Report and Recommendation on February 27, 2012. [Record No.
108] Based on his review of the record and the applicable law governing the motion, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that Lundy’s motion be denied. Neither Lundy nor the United
States has filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Although this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations to which objection is made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), “[i]t
does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual
or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those
-1-
findings.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Moreover, a party who fails to file
objections to a Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and recommendation waives the
right to appeal. See Wright v. Holbrook, 794 F.2d 1152, 1154-55 (6th Cir. 1986). Nevertheless,
having examined the record and having made a de novo determination, the Court is in agreement
with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Lundy alleged that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by: (1) recommending that
he be truthful during plea negotiations; (2) failing to object to the Court’s calculations regarding
relevant conduct; and (3) failing to inform him of the effect of relevant conduct, his potential
career offender status, and the resulting sentencing effects. As the Magistrate Judge correctly
noted, the grounds raised by Lundy do not support habeas relief. First, Lundy’s “honesty during
plea negotiations did not resulted in a greater guideline range of imprisonment or ultimate
sentence. Instead, information concerning the drug quantity attributed to Lundy was provided
by Lundy following his arrest. It was not dependent upon statements made during plea
negotiations with the United States. Further, Lundy has not indicated how he would have faired
differently had he not engaged in plea negotiations in an honest fashion.
Regarding Lundy’s second claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Magistrate
Judge noted that, contrary to the defendant’s claim, his attorney filed written objections and
argued against inclusion of the total pill count outlined in the Presentence Investigation Report.
However, he was unsuccessful regarding that objection. Next, the Magistrate Judge fully
considered and correctly rejected Lundy’s argument that his attorney was ineffective for failing
to advise him of his potential status as a career offender and the effect of relevant conduct under
-2-
the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge considered – and
properly rejected – Lundy’s remaining claims not raised on direct appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As Magistrate Judge Wier noted in his Recommended
Disposition, “a § 2255 motion cannot substitute for direct appeal.” (citations omitted) [Record
No. 108] Here, the record clearly demonstrates that Lundy entered a knowing and voluntary
guilty plea during which he admitted his guilt to the crime charged. The transcript of the plea
hearing demonstrates that all terms and conditions of the guilty plea were discussed and that the
defendant was fully aware that his precise guideline range could not be determined until the time
of the sentencing hearing.
Finally, the Court agrees that a Certificate of Appealability should not be issued in this
matter. Lundy has not shown that reasonable jurists would disagree with the Magistrate Judge’s
and this Court’s assessment of the constitutional claims or find that they are debatable or wrong.
And with respect to issues of procedural default, Lundy has not demonstrated that “jurists or
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists or reason would find it debatable whether the district court
was correct in its procedural ruling.”
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Record No. 108] is
ADOPTED and INCORPORATED by reference;
-3-
2.
The Petitioner/Defendant’s motion [Record No. 97] is DENIED and his claims
are DISMISSED with prejudice;
3.
A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue because the Petitioner/Defendant
has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any substantive constitutional right;
4.
Judgment will be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and
Order in favor of the Respondent/Plaintiff.
This 19th day of March, 2012.
-4-
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?