United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
HORNSBY MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MAURICE HICKS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE.
the Court is Petitioner Brian Musomba Maweu's
(“Maweu”) pro se Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(Record Document 870). Maweu seeks to have his sentence
corrected on the grounds of concealment of evidence of his
alleged child molestation activities in Kenya and ineffective
assistance of counsel. For the reasons discussed herein,
Maweu's § 2255 Motion is DENIED.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
prosecution centered around his involvement in Dreamboard,
which was a membership-only internet forum created to
facilitate the distribution of child pornography.
See Record Document 824-2. Maweu became a member of
Dreamboard on January 18, 2009. As a member, Maweu posted 121
images or files, 34 of which were posted in an exclusive
section on the site dedicated to “homemade
material.” See id. In addition, Maweu made
multiple posts advertising the distribution of child
pornography, and he also paid the fees required to maintain
the bulletin board on the website. See id.
addition to his participation in Dreamboard, Maweu
administered a separate online forum entitled “My
African Girls.” See Record Document 890 at 4.
The forum advertised photos and videos of Maweu molesting
Kenyan children. Patrons of the “My African
Girls” forum could request custom videos featuring
specific girls engaged in specified sexual acts. See
id. at 5.
November 9, 2011, a federal grand jury filed charges in a
fourth Superseding Indictment against Maweu and 27 other
co-defendants. See Record Document 506. The
indictment alleged four counts against Maweu including: (1)
engaging in a child exploitation enterprise; (2) conspiring
to advertise the distribution of child pornography; (3)
conspiring to distribute child pornography; and (4) one count
of forfeiture. See id.
April 9, 2015, Maweu plead guilty to Count One of the
indictment-engaging in a child exploitation enterprise.
See Record Document 822. On September 28, 2015, the
Court sentenced him to life in prison with a lifetime term of
supervised release. See Record Document 838. Maweu
appealed his sentence. See Record Document 839. On
August 18, 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
his sentence. See Record Document 869. On September
8, 2016, Maweu filed the instant § 2255 Motion.
See Record Documents 870 and 872. The Government
answered the motion on November 16, 2016. See Record
Document 890. Maweu replied to the Government's answer on
December 22, 2016. See Record Document
federal habeas corpus remedy is contained in 28 U.S.C. §
2255, which provides that a prisoner serving a federal
sentence may make a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
his sentence within a year after his conviction has become
final. Review under § 2255 is limited to four grounds:
(1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the United States; (2) the court was without
jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence exceeds
the statutory maximum sentence; or (4) the sentence is
otherwise subject to collateral attack. See 28
U.S.C. § 2255(a).
accepting a guilty plea and exhaustion of a defendant's
right to appeal, the Court is “entitled to presume that
the defendant stands fairly and finally convicted.”
United States v. Shaid, 937 F.2d 228, 231-32 (5th
Cir. 1991), quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S.
152, 164, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592 (1982). As explained by the
Supreme Court, “our trial and appellate procedures are
not so unreliable that we may not afford their completed
operation any binding effect beyond the next in a series of
endless postconviction collateral attacks . . . to the
contrary, a final judgment commands respect.”
Frady, 456 U.S. at 164-65, 102 S.Ct. at 1593.
a § 2255 motions is to be used sparingly as a defendant
can only challenge a final conviction on constitutional or
jurisdictional issues. See Shaid, 937 F.2d at 232.
Section 2255 motions are “reserved for transgressions
of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries
that could not have been raised on direct appeal and would,
if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of
justice.” United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d
367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Furthermore,