United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
M. GROH CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration
of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 89 in 3:15-CR-12. Pursuant
to Rule 2 of the Local Rules of Prisoner Litigation
Procedure, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge
Trumble for submission of a proposed report and
recommendation (“R&R”). On June 15, 2017,
Magistrate Judge Trumble filed an R&R in which he
recommended that this Court deny and dismiss with prejudice
the Petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to
Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal
Custody. ECF No. 89 in 3:15-CR-12.
March 15, 2015, a two-count indictment charged Petitioner
with bank fraud and making false statements on a loan
application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and 18
U.S.C. § 1014. ECF No. 1 in 3:15-CR-12. On June 4, 2015,
the Petitioner signed a written plea agreement, pleading
guilty to Count Two which charged him with making a false
statement on a loan application. ECF No. 33 in 3:15-CR-12.
same day, Petitioner appeared before the magistrate court for
a change of plea hearing. Petitioner testified that he was 47
years old and that he had attended college. ECF No. 56 at
4:19-22 in 3:15-CR-12. Then, the magistrate court engaged in
the following colloquy with Petitioner:
THE COURT: Mr. Isner, a couple of questions about your
representation. Do you believe you have had adequate time to
discuss your case fully with [your counsel]
THE DEFENDANT: I do.
THE COURT: Has he been able to answer your questions about
how best to proceed in this case?
THE DEFENDANT: He has.
THE COURT: Is there anything your lawyer has not done which
you have asked him to do?
THE DEFENDANT: Not that I can think of.
THE COURT: Are you completely satisfied with the legal advice
that you have received from Mr. Compton?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
56 at 7:10-22 in 3:15-CR-12. The magistrate court then
reviewed the plea agreement with Petitioner to ensure that he
understood and agreed with the terms therein. Id. at
22:10-14. Thereafter, counsel for the Government presented
testimony of FBI Special Agent David Rauser to establish the
factual basis for the plea. Id. at 24-30. Following
direct examination of the Agent Rauser, the Court afforded
Petitioner's counsel and Petitioner himself the
opportunity to question the witness. Petitioner did not
contest the factual basis for the plea, and both he and his
counsel declined to question the witness. Id. at
30:10-22. The magistrate court next asked Petitioner what he
did to make himself guilty of Count Two, to which the
Petitioner responded that he lied on his loan application,
claiming that he was the owner of property that he did not in
fact own. Id. at 31:3-23. Finally, the magistrate
court reviewed the rights that the Petitioner would waive by
entering the plea, including the waiver of appellate and
post-conviction relief rights, and found that the Petitioner
understood the consequences of his plea. Id. at
October 10, 2015, Petitioner appeared before this Court for a
sentencing hearing. ECF No. 42 in 3:15-CR-12. This Court
found a base offense level of 11. ECF No. 47 in 3:15-CR-12.
With a criminal history category of V, the Guidelines
provided a sentencing range of 24 to 30 months of
imprisonment. Id. This Court sentenced Petitioner to