STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, District Judge.
Defendant Albert Greer was convicted of bank fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1344. ECF 60. Greer filed motions to vacate his 168-month sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and to dismiss the indictment and release him immediately. ECF 85, 94. For the following reasons, the Court will deny the motions.
On February 7, 2013, the Government charged Greer with conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft. ECF 1. The Court severed and dismissed the identity theft charge, the case proceeded to a six-day trial, and a jury convicted Greer of the remaining charges. On July 25, 2014, the Court determined a guideline range of 135 to 168 months, and sentenced Greer to 168 months imprisonment, three years supervised release, and $832,793.23 in restitution payments. ECF 80, PgID 1299-1301; ECF 60. A judgment issued on August 19, 2014. ECF 60. The next day, Greer filed a notice of appeal of the Court's judgment. ECF 61. Six weeks later, Greer failed to surrender to the Federal Bureau of Prisons as directed, and the Court issued a warrant for his arrest. ECF 66. The arrest occurred while Greer's appeal was pending, so the Government moved for the Sixth Circuit to dismiss the appeal based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The Sixth Circuit granted the motion and dismissed Greer's appeal. ECF 81.
An individual sentenced by a federal court may seek to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. There are four different grounds for claiming relief: "(1) that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence; (3) that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law; and (4) that the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack." Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 426-27 (1962) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A § 2255 motion "is not a substitute for a direct appeal," Regalado v. United States, 334 F.3d 520, 528 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982)), so "a prisoner must clear a significantly higher hurdle than would exist on direct appeal" to merit collateral relief, Frady, 456 U.S. at 166. Generally, the motion must allege "(1) an error of constitutional magnitude; (2) a sentence imposed outside the statutory limits; or (3) an error of fact or law that was so fundamental as to render the entire proceeding invalid." Weinberger v. United States, 268 F.3d 346, 351 (6th Cir. 2001).
Greer seeks § 2255 relief for alleged prosecutorial misconduct, judicial errors and bias, and ineffective assistance of counsel. ECF 85, PgID 1318-19; ECF 86, PgID 1327-33. Upon review, the Court construes Greer's "Motion to Dismiss Indictment and for Immediate Release" as a reply to the Government's response brief. The Government argues that Greer's first two claims are procedurally barred because he did not raise them on direct appeal, and his ineffective assistance of counsel claims are without merit. ECF 93, PgID 1375-88. An evidentiary hearing is appropriate when "a factual dispute arises." Huff v. United States, 734 F.3d 600, 607 (6th Cir. 2013). No factual dispute exists here; Greer's allegations are neither contradicted by the Government nor by the record. Because there is no factual dispute, the Court declines to hold an evidentiary hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (A Court should grant an evidentiary hearing "[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief[.]").
Greer could have raised his claims for prosecutorial misconduct, ECF 85, PgID 1318 and ECF 86, PgID 1330-31, and judicial bias and errors, ECF 85, PgID 1318, 1322-24, on direct appeal. The Sixth Circuit dismissed Greer's direct appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The doctrine allows appellate courts to dismiss direct appeals "of defendants who fle[e] the jurisdiction during an appeal and remain[] at large." ECF 81, PgID 1308 (quoting United States v. Lanier, 123 F.3d 945, 946 (6th Cir. 1997)). Generally, courts consider a claim procedurally defaulted if a defendant fails to raise the issue on direct review. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003) (stating "claims not raised on direct appeal may not be raised on collateral review"); Frady, 456 U.S. at 165 ("[A] collateral challenge may not do service for an appeal."). The procedural default rule "conserve[s] judicial resources and . . . respect[s] the law's important interest in the finality of judgments." Massaro, 538 U.S. at 504.
Two exceptions allow a defendant to avoid procedural default if: the defendant (1) shows "cause" and "actual prejudice" or (2) demonstrates that he is "actually innocent." Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998). Only the first exception applies here.
The Government argues that Greer's § 2255 motion is procedurally barred because Greer's failure to raise his § 2255 issues on appeal was caused by his "decision to become a fugitive," and thus lacked a legitimate cause. ECF 93, PgID 1376-77 (citing United States v. Lynn, 365 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2004)).
Lynn, 365 F.3d at 1242. The Lynn opinion persuades the Court. See also United States v. Lanier, 238 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2000) (Table) (finding that the "district court correctly concluded that the dismissal with prejudice of these claims [by the Sixth Circuit] pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine precludes their consideration" in postconviction motions).
The Court finds that Greer's claims for prosecutorial misconduct and judicial error and bias are procedurally defaulted for several reasons. First, Greer makes no showing of "cause" or "actual prejudice" to satisfy the exception to procedural default. Second, even if presented, Greer's status as a fugitive is insufficient cause to satisfy the exception to procedural default. The "cause" exception for procedural default "ordinarily requires a showing of some external impediment preventing counsel from constructing or raising the claim." Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 492 (1986). Allowing Greer to rely upon his fugitive status for his showing of "cause" would eviscerate the efficacy of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. A contrary decision would allow a fugitive criminal defendant to benefit from his own wrongdoing: he could escape the jurisdiction of the appellate court, the appellate court could dismiss his claims, and then he could bring the dismissed claims in a § 2255 motion as a substitute for a direct appeal. Third, permitting Greer to bring claims in a § 2255 motion that he could have raised on direct appeal would contradict the well-settled rule that collateral attacks on a judgment cannot serve as proxies for direct appeals. See Massaro, 538 U.S. at 504.
As a matter of equity, and in support of the long-established fugitive disentitlement doctrine, the Court determines that Greer cannot use his fugitive status to create the "external impediment" preventing his counsel from raising claims on appeal. Greer's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and judicial errors and bias are procedurally barred.
The remainder of Greer's motion centers on alleged deficiencies in his trial and appellate counsel's performances that amount to ineffective assistance. See ECF 86, PgID 1327-29, 1332.
Greer's § 2255 motion is not the first instance of Greer raising complaints about his trial counsel. The Court previously noted that his complaints lacked merit. At the end of the first day of trial, Greer informed the Court of his belief that his defense counsel smelled like alcohol. ECF 73, PgID 535-36 (under seal). Greer raised the complaint after counsel had conducted nearly five hours of pre-trial and voir dire activities before the Court. In fact, the Court stated that it knew defense counsel was not impaired. Id. Defense counsel then expressed concern that Greer's complaints were merely "the tip of the iceberg" of Greer's "campaign" to frustrate the case. Id.
Later, on the last day of trial argument, Greer made a request to represent himself. ECF 78, PgID 1060-61.
After the attempt at disparaging his counsel failed, Greer argued that there was a conflict of interest because he was going to file a grievance against defense counsel. Id. at 1095. Defense counsel denied knowledge of the alleged complaint and then recounted Greer's public maneuvers and his concern that Greer was trying to "create a situation where he can say at some point that he didn't have effective assistance of counsel[.]" Id.
The Court repeatedly stated on the record its belief that defense counsel served effectively and professionally as Greer's attorney. Greer himself acknowledged his counsel's efforts during the following exchange at trial:
ECF 79, PgID 1266. Now, Greer repackages his old, frivolous complaints about his counsel's effectiveness in his § 2255 motion. Greer's motion represents an abuse of the judicial process and judicial resources. Greer's manipulative behavior detracts from the meritorious claims potentially raised by other prisoners in § 2255 motions and by other filers in the Court. Greer has repeatedly demonstrated a contempt for the judicial process—clearly manifested by his decision to become a fugitive—and the Court's extensive treatment of his claims detracts from the many civil and criminal defendants before it that follow proper procedure and manifest a respect for judicial economy and the interests of justice. Notwithstanding Greer's pattern of abusive behavior, the Court now addresses his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Greer argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for improperly handling the Government's plea offer. ECF 86, PgID 1327. He argues that he failed to accept the "good offer" because counsel "grossly understated the sentence exposure [Defendant] would face by going to trial," failed to adequately explain the plea agreement and related information with Defendant, and "misrepresented [Defendant's] willingness to accept the Government's offer to the court." Id.
The final pretrial conference transcript belies Greer's claim. At the conference, the Government stated that its offer—sent to Greer's counsel four months earlier and reiterated to Greer shortly before the hearing—was to dismiss the aggravated identity theft and bank fraud counts if Greer pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy with a guideline range of 27 to 33 months. ECF 71, PgID 386-87. Greer's counsel confirmed that he received the proposal prior to the hearing, the prosecutor conveyed the salient parts of the proposal to Greer directly, and Greer rejected the proposal after stepping outside with counsel to discuss it. Id. at 387. Counsel confirmed that there was sufficient time to discuss the proposal, he answered all of Greer's questions about the proposal, and Greer comprehended his situation. Id. Next, the Court explained to Greer the possible consequences he might face if he rejected the agreement, and Greer confirmed that he understood the proposal as conveyed to him by counsel months earlier, and by the prosecutor before the hearing. Id. at 389. The following exchange ensued:
Id. at 390-91. Greer repeated his assertion stating to the Court through counsel that he did not want to accept the Rule 11 Plea Agreement, but would negotiate further with the government. Id. at PgID 404. The Court also asked Greer's counsel for his take on the situation:
Id. at 392. Defense counsel later responded to Greer's allegations that he was uncommunicative:
ECF 78, PgID 1086.
Greer's testimony and the testimony of his attorney show that his counsel discharged the "duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused." Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 145 (2012). Greer argues that he did not understand his sentence exposure and that the sentence he received far exceeded representations made during plea negotiations. The record belies the assertion. First, Greer acknowledged that his crimes could carry a term of up to 30 years. ECF 5, PgID 14. Second, the Court based Greer's sentence, in part, on mortgage fraud committed at properties not included in the indictment but later revealed during trial. Greer's attorney objected to the inclusion of more than the four properties listed in the indictment. See ECF 76, PgID 875-81. The Court addressed that concern and allowed additional properties to be addressed. Id. at 960-64. The inclusion of additional properties raised the amount of loss perpetrated by Greer's fraud and substantially increased his sentence. Defense counsel objected to the inclusion of those properties and the increased loss amount in his objections to the pre-sentence report. See ECF 80, PgID 1284-88. In fact, defense counsel maintained—in a non-frivolous manner—that the appropriate sentencing range was zero to six months. Id. at 1293. At the time of the plea agreement, therefore, defense counsel could not have anticipated the sentence exposure that Greer eventually faced. Finally, Greer affirmatively stated on the record that he understood the plea agreement and that he was declining to accept the plea. None of his new claims undermines his statements to the Court regarding his knowledge of the agreement or the voluntariness of his rejection of the plea offer. Accordingly, the Court denies this aspect of Greer's ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Greer also contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file certain pretrial motions, ECF 86, PgID 1328, failing to object to evidence during trial, id., and failing to represent adequately Greer during sentencing, id. at 1329. But Greer's motion is devoid of any specific, relevant details explaining why counsel was ineffective and how Greer was prejudiced by the assistance rendered (e.g., the basis of the motions and objections counsel should have filed or lodged, and how he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to file the motion or lodge the objections).
As an initial matter, the Court recognizes the "wide latitude" provided to counsel when "making tactical decisions." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Greer's first additional mistake of not filing certain pretrial motions likely refers to defense counsel's strategic decision to not file a pre-trial motion on the jurisdictional issue in the indictment. Defense counsel raised the issue in a Rule 29 motion before the Court. The Court does not secondguess the well-considered strategic decisions of counsel.
Greer further avers that defense counsel failed to object to evidence at trial. The record clearly refutes that assertion. The record is replete with defense counsel's objections to evidence presented at trial. The claim is clearly unfounded.
Finally, Greer asserts that trial counsel failed to represent him adequately at sentencing. Defense counsel filed written objections to the pre-sentence report. See ECF 93-2, PgID 1404-07. Defense counsel raised those objections again at sentencing. ECF 80, PgID 1283-93. The record clearly reveals that defense counsel effectively represented Greer throughout the pre-trial and trial process.
Greer also claims that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance. ECF 86, PgID 1332. The claim is frivolous. Trial counsel timely filed a notice of appeal before the Sixth Circuit granted his motion to withdraw representation and appointed new appellate counsel. See ECF 61, 63. Appointed counsel then acted diligently by ordering trial and sentencing transcripts, requesting and receiving an extension of time to file Greer's brief, and responding to the Government's motion to dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Greer, Case No. 14-2076, ECF 12-1, 16, 19 (6th Cir.). It was Greer's failure to report to the Federal Bureau of Prisons facility—not appellate counsel's ineffective assistance—that gave the Sixth Circuit sufficient cause to dismiss his appeal. Accordingly, the Court rejects Greer's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
The Court must determine whether Greer has demonstrated a "substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right" such that a Certificate of Appealability (COA) should issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reasonable jurists could not conclude that Greer's claims deserve further review, so the Court will not issue a COA. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). And because an appeal cannot be taken in good faith, the Court denies Greer leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
