United States District Court, D. Minnesota
K. Bell & Melinda A. Williams, United States Attorney for
Moua, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant Tong Moua's Pro
Se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Sentence
Imposed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“§ 2255
Motion”) [Doc. No. 164]. Based on a review of the
files, records and proceedings herein, and for the reasons
set forth below, the Court denies Defendant's § 2255
Factual and Procedural Background
April 12, 2016, Defendant was indicted for two robberies that
took place in the St. Paul, Minnesota area. (Indictment [Doc.
No. 12].) On September 21, 2016, a Superseding Indictment
[Doc. No. 49] was filed charging Defendant with a total of
six bank robberies and one attempted bank robbery that
occurred between August 29, 2015 and March 1, 2016.
Government made discovery disclosures of documents Bates
numbered 1-2144 on April 29, 2016. (Gov't Ex. A [Doc. No.
175-1].) Because the Government was initially unable to
complete its redaction process, the parties agreed to a
temporary protective order to allow Defendant to review the
evidence against him, but prohibited him from retaining
personal copies. (Becker Aff. [Doc. No. 175-7] at 1.)
production, the Government's investigator, John Lageson,
met with Defendant to review the discovery materials
twice-once on May 18, 2016 and again on June 3, 2016.
(Id.) However, Defendant also wanted his own copy of
the discovery materials. (Id.) So, on August 30,
2016, Defendant was provided with a redacted copy of all the
discovery materials with the personal identifying information
of any victims or witnesses removed. (Gov't Ex. D [Doc.
initial plea offer was conveyed on April 18, 2016, proposing
a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement to 240 months. (Becker Aff. at
2.) Defendant's counsel, James Becker, relayed the offer
to Defendant on April 22, 2016, and explained that this offer
precluded his ability to request a variance. (Id. at
second plea offer was made on July 15, 2016, proposing that
Defendant agree to a sentence between 120 and 240 months,
with the Government indicating that it would seek 240
months' imprisonment. (Id. at 3.)
Defendant's counsel reviewed this offer with Defendant on
August 9, 2016, and also discussed a possible acceptance of
responsibility reduction, as well as the ability to request
any sentence between 120 and 240 months. (Id.)
same day, Defendant and counsel met with the Government for a
reverse proffer. (Id. at 2.) The Government
explained to Defendant that if he pled guilty to Count 2 and
admitted responsibility for the additional six robberies he
was charged with, the Government would request a three-level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility. (Gov't Ex. F
[Doc. No. 175-6] at 22.) The resulting Guidelines range, the
Government explained, would be 120 to 150 months'
imprisonment. The final plea offer proposed a Rule
11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, wherein the Defendant could not
ask for less than 120 months, and the Government could not
ask for more than 180 months. (Id.) No. plea offer