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. Mangan

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 19, 2017

United States of America Plaintiff,
v.
Michael John Mangan, Defendant.

          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

          ANN D. MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This 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][1] (“Amended 2255 Motion”). For the reasons set forth below, Mangan's Amended 2255 Motion is granted.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On 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.

         The 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] . . . serving.” Id.

         In 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].

         On 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.

         In 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 day. Id.

         On June 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].

         On 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.

         III. ...


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.