Harlow v. USA - 2255

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Chief Judge Catherine C. Blake on 12/20/2016. (c/m 12/20/16 bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ANTHONY JOSEPH HARLOW
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

:
:
: CIVIL NO. CCB-14-3759
: Criminal No. CCB-13-0171
:
...o0o...
MEMORANDUM

Federal prison inmate Anthony Harlow pled guilty on October 31, 2013, to possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime. On February 6, 2014, despite his potential status as a career offender and
Armed Career Criminal, he was sentenced to 120 months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons,
as a result of an agreed plea negotiated by his experienced and zealous defense counsel. On
December 1, 2014, he filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Pl.’s Mot. to Vacate,
ECF No. 46). He contends that counsel was ineffective, for failing to advise him of the elements
of 18 U.S.C. §924(c), and that he should have been allowed to appeal the Fourth Amendment
violation he now asserts. The government responded. (Gov’t Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. to Vacate,
ECF No. 53). Subsequently, on July 30, 2015, Harlow filed what appears to be a second motion
to vacate expanding on his Fourth Amendment claim and also alleging counsel was ineffective
for failing to seek a competency hearing. (Mot. to Vacate, ECF No. 61). All his claims have
been considered, but none have merit. His motions to vacate will be denied for the reasons
explained below.
First, Harlow waived his Fourth Amendment claim when he pled guilty, and therefore
had nothing to appeal. In any event, it appears he was arrested and searched pursuant to a valid
warrant. Second, the elements of a § 924(c) charge were properly explained to him in his plea

agreement letter, (Plea Agreement, ECF No. 35), and also by the court at the Rule 11 proceeding,
(Guilty Plea Tr. 8, ECF No. 51). Finally, far from being ineffective, counsel negotiated a
favorable agreement in the face of strong evidence such that there is no reasonable likelihood
Harlow would have gone to trial rather than plead guilty. She thoroughly investigated Harlow’s
mental condition and persuasively presented it as a mitigating factor. While Harlow apparently
was suffering from depression, the record does not show that he entered his plea, he was “unable
to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in
his defense.” See 18 U.S.C. § 4241.
Accordingly, the motions will be denied by a separate Order which follows.

December 20, 2016
Date

/S/
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge