Stephen P. Brown v. United States

In December 2015 petitioner Stephen P. Brown pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement with the government to having violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). As part of that plea agreement, Mr. Brown waived his right to appeal or collaterally challenge any sentence within or below the stipulated range of 292-365 months’ imprisonment set forth in that plea agreement. The U.S. Department of Probation, though, recommended a 240-month term of imprisonment, citing Mr. Brown’s advanced age and numerous debilitating medical conditions. Likewise, Mr. Brown requested a 120-month sentence (the statutory mandatory minimum for his offense of conviction) based on his personal history and characteristics as well as a report prepared by an expert in the field of sex offender treatment who concluded that Mr. Brown presented only a “remote” risk of reoffending. Nevertheless, in March 2016 the district court sentenced Mr. Brown to 292 months’ imprisonment, offering no explanation for its rejection of the recommendation made by the U.S. Department of Probation or the arguments advanced by Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. In response to a motion to dismiss his appeal based on the “appeal waiver” clause in his plea agreement, in May 2017 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Mr. Brown’s appeal. Mr. Brown next filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence, asserting that he had been denied: (1) effective assistance of counsel at sentencing in violation of