Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Holland

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

May 7, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JAMAL HOLLAND

          MEMORANDUM RULING

          S. MAURICE HICKS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         Before the Court is a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Record Document 43) filed by the Petitioner, Jamal Holland (“Holland”). Holland seeks to have his sentence corrected on the following grounds: (1) that the Court violated Holland's due process right in failing to provide notice of how the Court determined the upward variance in his sentence and; (2) that counsel was ineffective in not objecting to the Court's failure to note how it determined the upward variance in Holland's sentencing. For the reasons set forth in the instant Memorandum Ruling, Holland's Section 2255 Motion is DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The following facts are taken from the presentence report (“PSR”). See Record Document 25 at 3-4, PSR. On July 13, 2013, a confidential informant met with special agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Sabine Parish Sheriff's Office investigators. The informant identified Holland as a multi-ounce to pound quantity methamphetamine distributor in the Many, Louisiana area.

         On September 18, 2013, the informant arranged a transaction, via telephone, with Holland that was to take place in Many. The transaction occurred at Holland's residence. After the transaction, the informant submitted the suspected narcotics to the DEA agents. The narcotics were sent to the DEA lab and tested positive for methamphetamine, with a net weight of 27 grams.

         On October 3, 2013, a second transaction was arranged through a series of text messages between the informant and Holland. The transaction was captured on video which also showed Holland weighing out the methamphetamine and counting the prerecorded DEA money. After the transaction, the informant submitted the suspected narcotics to the DEA agents. The narcotics were sent to the DEA lab and tested positive for methamphetamine, with a net weight of 27 grams.

         The drugs recovered from the informant were forwarded to the DEA's lab for confirmation. The results revealed the methamphetamine purchased September 18, 2013, yielded 21.5 grams of pure methamphetamine; and the methamphetamine purchased on October 3, 2013, yielded 17.9 grams of pure methamphetamine, which totaled 39.4 grams of pure methamphetamine or methamphetamine (actual).

         Thereafter, Holland was charged by the federal grand jury for the Western District of Louisiana with two counts of distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). See Record Document 1, Indictment. He pleaded guilty to Count 1. See Record Document 21 and 23, Minutes of Change of Plea Hearing and Plea Agreement. A PSR was ordered. See Record Document 21, Minutes of Change of Plea Hearing.

         Based on the quantity of actual methamphetamine, Holland had a base offense level of 28. See Record Document 25 at 4. He then received a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility for a total offense level of 25. See id. at 5. In the section entitled “Offense Behavior Not Part of Relevant Conduct, ” the PSR explained that, when Holland was arrested, officers searched his home and found marijuana, Xanax, Lortab, and an additional quantity of methamphetamine.[1] See id.

         Though he was only 28-years old, Holland had an extensive criminal history that placed him in criminal history category VI. See id. at 2, 9. Holland received no points for his first conviction, possession of a Schedule I controlled substance. See id. at 6. For that crime, he was sentenced to six months of supervised probation, which he failed to satisfactorily complete; his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to six months of incarceration. See id. Less than two years after his first conviction, Holland was arrested for possession of a Schedule I controlled substance. See id. He pleaded guilty, was sentenced to probation, had his probation revoked, and was sentenced to serve two years at hard labor. See id. He received three points for this conviction. See id.

         Less than three months after the preceding arrest, Holland was again arrested for possession of a Schedule I controlled substance (second offense). See id. at 7 He was convicted and sentenced to serve four years of supervised probation. See id. His probation was eventually revoked, and he was sentenced to five years at hard labor. See id. Holland received three more criminal history points for this offense. See id.

         Less than six months after the preceding conviction, Holland was arrested for distribution of a Schedule II controlled substance. See id. He was convicted and sentenced to seven years at hard labor. He received three criminal history points for this conviction. See id.

         Holland received two more criminal history points for his conviction for reckless operation and flight from an officer. See id. at 8. He failed to stop after officers activated their lights and sirens, attempted to evade officers during the vehicle pursuit, and fled from officers on foot once he stopped his vehicle. See id.

         Less than one year later, Holland was arrested for possession of a Schedule I controlled substance (first offense). See id. at 8. He pleaded guilty and received two ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.