Ward v. USA - 2255

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 12/31/13. (c/m chambers)(jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ANTONIO WARD
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

:
:
: CIVIL NO. CCB-13-2584
: Criminal No. CCB-12-0362
:
...o0o...
MEMORANDUM

Federal prison inmate Antonio Ward pled guilty to unlawful possession of ammunition in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) on July 20, 2012. The plea was entered pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), under which the defendant and the government agreed to a
recommendation of 120 months incarceration. This recommendation was accepted by the court,
and on September 20, 2012, Ward was sentenced to 120 months in the custody of the Bureau of
Prisons. (Judgment, ECF No. 27). All other counts were dismissed. No appeal was taken.
On September 5, 2013, Ward filed the present motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
which is timely. He challenges the “enhancement” of his sentence to the maximum of 120
months, which was above the advisory guidelines for Count One, and asserts that counsel was
ineffective for failing to challenge the sentence. For the reasons explained below, his motion
will be denied.
First, to the extent Ward raises a direct challenge to his sentence, the motion is barred by
the waiver of appeal contained in his signed plea agreement and explained to him on the record
at the Rule 11 guilty plea proceeding. (Gov’t Resp. Ex. A at 9, ECF No. 38-1; Gov’t Resp. Ex.
B at 19-20, ECF No. 38-2). In any event, the sentence was not “enhanced.” The maximum
penalty for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), without any enhancement, is 120 months. The
guidelines, properly calculated at 78 to 97 months, only are advisory after United States v.

1

Booker. 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005). There was no increase to the sentence, and the decision in
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), relating to mandatory minimums, is not
applicable to Ward’s sentence.
Second, counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the sentence. To the
contrary, counsel negotiated an agreed-upon disposition significantly more favorable than if
Ward had not accepted responsibility and had been convicted of the narcotics as well as the
firearms charges. (Govt’ Resp. Ex. B at 21-22; Gov’t Resp. Ex. C at 7-8, 19, 28, ECF No. 38-3).
As explained to Ward directly by the court, his sentence was not controlled simply by the
guidelines on Count One. (Gov’t Resp. Ex. C at 10-13, 25-26). Counsel was not deficient in his
performance, nor has Ward shown any prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687 (1984).
Finally, Ward has not raised any arguments that would justify a certificate of
appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A separate Order follows.

December 31, 2013
Date

/s/
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge

2