Ramos-David v. United States

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denied Darwin Ramos-David’s pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, and denied his request for an evidentiary hearing. The court addressed his claims concerning the voluntariness of his guilty plea, alleged actual innocence, competency, coercion, and the circumstances surrounding his plea withdrawal request.

Holdings

1. A petitioner asserting actual innocence must present new reliable evidence showing that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. Ramos-David did not meet that standard because he presented no new evidence and his sworn admissions and other record evidence contradicted his claim.
2. Ramos-David failed to establish that either the Commonwealth or federal government so thoroughly dominated or manipulated the other sovereign's prosecution that the federal prosecution was a sham. Mere cooperation, overlap, or an allegation that a state lineup should have been suppressed did not satisfy the Bartkus exception.
3. Ramos-David's contention that the offenses caused no injury and that the case lacked a case or controversy was meritless. The indictment alleged federal criminal offenses, and the court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231.
4. Ramos-David did not establish ineffective assistance because he failed to show deficient performance and resulting prejudice under Strickland. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise meritless jurisdictional, factual-discrepancy, or plea-agreement arguments.
5. Ramos-David was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he failed to establish entitlement to § 2255 relief or a hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ramos-David established actual innocence sufficient to overcome procedural barriers or obtain relief under § 2255.
2. Whether the alleged state-federal cooperation and transfer of the prosecution constituted a sham prosecution under the Bartkus exception to the dual-sovereignty doctrine and violated double jeopardy.
3. Whether the absence of an injured victim deprived the federal court of standing, a case or controversy, or subject-matter jurisdiction.
4. Whether the indictment sufficiently alleged federal offenses and whether the district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231.
5. Whether trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge jurisdiction, alleged factual discrepancies, or corrections to the plea agreement.
6. Whether counsel had a conflict of interest by allegedly encouraging Ramos-David to make false statements during proffer sessions or the plea colloquy.
7. Whether Ramos-David was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

dismissed