United States District Court, D. Maryland
J. MESSITTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Hudson, pro se, has filed a Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF
No. 38. The Court has considered the Motion and the
Government's Opposition. For the reasons described below,
the Court DENIES the Motion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
June 2010 and August 2011, Hudson was part of a conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing
cocaine. Criminal No. PJM 12-397, ECF No. 14-1 at 1. During
his arrest, he rammed several police vehicles with his car,
then tried to flee on foot before finally being subdued.
Id. at 2.
20, 2012, Hudson pled guilty to a one-count Information,
charging him with the conspiracy. ECF Nos. 14, 15. Allen
Orenberg, Esquire, represented him during the course of plea
negotiations and at the plea hearing. ECF No. 38 at 11. On
January 3, 2014, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. of this
Court sentenced Hudson to a term of 120
months' imprisonment followed by five years of supervised
release. ECF No. 34. Gary Proctor, Esquire, represented
Hudson at sentencing. ECF No. 54 at 2:9. Hudson's prison
sentence was subsequently reduced to 96 months pursuant to an
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. ECF No. 59.
January 5, 2015, Hudson filed the current 28 U.S.C. §
2255 motion. ECF No. 38. He raises six grounds in support of
(1) Orenberg, he says, provided ineffective assistance by
poorly advising Hudson as to the impact of the charged drug
quantity on his potential sentence and by failing to file
appropriate pre-trial motions;
(2) Orenberg also provided ineffective assistance by failing
to investigate critical evidence and failing to argue that
Hudson was only responsible for a lesser drug amount than the
full amount attributed to the conspiracy;
(3) Judge Williams imposed an illegal sentence when he held
Hudson responsible for all the foreseeable drug sales of his
(4) Hudson's plea was not entered into freely and
voluntarily because he was misled by Orenberg and acted under
(5) Hudson is actually innocent because the drug amount for
which he was held liable was never appropriately established;
(6) Hudson should not have been sentenced above the mandatory
minimum pursuant to United States v. Alleyne, 133
S.Ct. 2151 (2013) because a jury did not find him guilty of
the drug quantity that enhanced his sentence.
claims can be grouped into several categories: two relate to
ineffective assistance of counsel (Grounds 1 and 2), one
alleges that Hudson's guilty plea was unknowing and
involuntary (Ground 4), two allege that his sentencing was
erroneous because it took into account for drugs sold by his
co-conspirators (Grounds 3 and 5), and one claim is that the
sentencing court did not abide by United States v.
Alleyne (Ground 6).