McNeely v. USA - 2255
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 10/16/13. (c/m 10/23/13 jnls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
: CIVIL NO. CCB-13-1515
: Criminal No. CCB-11-0114
Federal prison inmate Antonio McNeely, who pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
heroin and received a sentence of 136 months on May 23, 2012, now seeks to vacate his sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons stated below, his motion will be denied.
McNeely was charged with a conspiracy involving 1,000 grams or more of heroin;
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
crime of violence. As his experienced counsel, Paul Hazlehurst, apparently advised him, had he
gone to trial and been convicted of those charges, and had the government sought to enhance his
sentence under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 851, he could have faced 15 to 25 years of incarceration.
Pursuant to the agreement negotiated with the government, however, he admitted to a statement
of facts that involved 400-700 grams of heroin, the presence of a loaded firearm in his closet, and
his role as a manager in the drug operation. The offense level was agreed to be 30, and a
sentence within the range of 121-151 months also was agreed upon under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). The sentence imposed, 136 months, was within that range.
In this motion, McNeely asserts that trial counsel was ineffective and that his plea was
not knowing and voluntary. Both claims are meritless based on the record. First, McNeely was
accurately advised by his counsel of the greater sentence possible had he gone to trial, or even
pled guilty without an agreement. Second, he was thoroughly advised of his rights at the Rule 11
proceeding and agreed under oath that (1) the facts were correct; (2) he was satisfied with
counsel; and (3) he was giving up his rights to appeal.
In his motion, NcNeely focuses on the advisory guidelines range of 97-121 months
without acknowledging the other facts that could have been proved and the enhanced penalties
he could have been subject to. As the record establishes that he was accurately advised and that
his plea was both knowing and voluntary, his motion will be denied. A certificate of
appealability also will be denied.
A separate Order follows.
October 16, 2013
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge
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?