United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Michelle E. Jones, Esq., United States Attorney's Office,
Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.
Brandon Creighton Sample, Esq., Brandon Sample PLC, Rutland,
VT; and Daniel L. Gerdts, Esq., Daniel L. Gerdts, Lawyer,
Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendant Michael John Mangan.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge
for a ruling on Defendant Michael John Mangan's
(“Mangan”) Amended Motion under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 [Criminal Docket No. 109] (“Amended 2255
Motion”). For the reasons set forth below, Mangan's
Amended 2255 Motion is granted.
September 24, 2014, Mangan was indicted on seven counts of
mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
1341 and 1343. See Indictment [Docket No. 1]. On
February 23, 2015, Mangan entered a plea of guilty to one
count of wire fraud and one count of mail fraud, and the
parties agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. See
Min. Entry [Docket No. 35]. At the time of his guilty plea,
Mangan was serving a 72-month sentence in state court on
three felony stalking convictions.
Plea Agreement [Docket No. 36] set forth the parties'
recommendation that Mangan be sentenced at the low end of the
applicable guidelines range of 63 to 78 months imprisonment.
Plea Agreement at 6. The parties additionally recommended
that “48 months of that sentence be served
consecutively and the remainder . . . be served concurrently
to the [72-month] state court sentence [Mangan was] . . .
their sentencing memoranda, both parties recommended that
Mangan be sentenced to 63 months imprisonment, with 15 months
to be served concurrently to the state court sentence and the
remaining 48 months to be served consecutively. Def.'s
Sentencing Position [Docket No. 59]; Government's
Sentencing Position [Docket No. 66].
December 18, 2015, Mangan was sentenced to a 63 month
sentence; 15 months concurrent and 48 months consecutive to
his state court sentence. Sentencing J. [Docket No. 73]. The
sentence was consistent with the Plea Agreement and the
parties' positions at sentencing. In imposing the
sentence, the Court stated that it would “enforce the
negotiation here, ” referring to the Plea Agreement.
Tr. [Docket No. 84] 23:6. After sentencing, Mangan was
returned to the custody of the Minnesota Bureau of Prisons.
Mangan completed his state sentence on May 18, 2016.
December 2016, the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) determined that Mangan was not entitled
to 698 days of presentencing credit for time served in state
custody. Def.'s Mem. [Docket No. 90] Ex. 1. The BOP
subsequently reduced Mangan's prior custody credit to one
8, 2017, Mangan filed a pro se § 2255 Motion [Docket No.
89] arguing that the Government breached the Plea Agreement
by demanding the BOP remove his presentencing custody credit.
Id. Mangan asserted that “[t]o allow the 15
months [imposed by this Court] to run concurrent with the
state sentence, [he] would have had to get most of that 15
months as presentencing custody credit, and that did not
happen.” Id. at 10. The Government's
responded that Mangan's Motion should be denied because
his claim constituted a challenge to the execution of his
sentence and not to the validity of his sentence, the former
which is not cognizable under § 2255. See
Response [Docket No. 99].
September 13, 2017, Mangan, now represented by counsel, filed
the Amended 2255 Motion. Mangan argues that based upon the
Plea Agreement and the Court's colloquy during his change
of plea hearing, his “reasonable understanding of the
plea agreement was that he would serve 48 months in federal
prison after completing his state sentence.” Def.'s
Mem. Supp. Am. Mot. [Docket No. 110] at 1. Based upon the
BOP's revised computation of his sentence, Mangan
contends that his new release date is 303 days longer than
the 48 month consecutive sentence he agreed upon. Mangan thus
requests a sentence reduction of 303 days.