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.

Singh v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. California

June 20, 2014

SHELVEEN SHRANEEL SINGH, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Criminal Case No. 12-CR-4031 BEN-2

ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION

ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.

Petitioner Shelveen Shraneel Singh moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for a reduction in his sentence. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner worked at Global Financial Group, Inc. from October 2009 to August 2010. While working at Global Financial Group, Petitioner used false promises and misrepresentations to induce homeowners to purchase loan modification services.

On September 27, 2012, a federal grand jury returned a 50-count indictment against four individuals, including Petitioner. The indictment charged Petitioner with one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, 11 counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and 37 counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Petitioner was arrested the following day in Riverside County, and he made his initial appearance the same day before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Judge Bristow set a $100, 000 appearance bond and imposed pre-trial release conditions, which required Petitioner to abstain from engaging in telemarketing and solicitation activities. (Opp'n, Ex. 2.)

While on pre-trial release, Petitioner engaged in activities that would have constituted a violation of his pre-trial release conditions. On April 10, 2013, the United States Probation Office petitioned the Court for an Order to Show Cause (OSC) as to why Petitioner's pre-trial release should not be revoked. The OSC alleged that Petitioner engaged in telemarketing and solicitation activities. ( Id., Ex. 4.)

At the OSC hearing, the United States was prepared to present witnesses who would testify regarding Petitioner's breach of his pre-trial release conditions. Because Petitioner had chosen earlier to voluntarily admit the misconduct, however, the United States agreed to dismiss the petition as long as the pretrial release conditions were modified as follows: (1) the bond was increased from $100, 000 to a $150, 000 personal appearance bond; (2) Petitioner agreed to home confinement until sentencing with GPS monitoring, and (3) Petitioner agreed not to engage in any sales or marketing of any kind. Magistrate Judge Nita Stormes agreed with the recommendations, dismissed the petition, and modified the pre-trial release conditions as requested.

On May 16, 2013, Petitioner, represented by Attorney Charles Rees, entered into a plea agreement with the United States. As part of the agreement, Petitioner waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction or sentence. The Plea Agreement states: "In exchange for the Government's concessions in this plea agreement... defendant [] waives, to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack his sentence, except a post-conviction collateral attack based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless the Court imposes a custodial sentence above the high end of the guideline range recommended by the Government pursuant to this agreement at the time of sentencing." ( Id. at 17-18.)

Petitioner certified that he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the Plea Agreement, read it, discussed its terms with his attorney, and fully understood its meaning and effect. He also declared that he had consulted and was satisfied with his attorney. ( Id., Ex. 1.) Judge Stormes advised Petitioner of the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, his right to be represented by counsel, the elements the government would have to prove at trial, and the maximum sentence. ( Id., Ex. 5, at 3-7.) Judge Stormes determined that the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily, and accepted Petitioner's plea. ( Id. at 11.)

The Court held a sentencing hearing on December 2, 2013. The Court addressed Petitioner's objections regarding the sentencing disparity, the criminal history score, and the uncharged conduct. The Sentencing Guideline range as calculated by the United States was 97 to 121 months. ( Id. , Ex. 6, at 39.) Petitioner was sentenced to 110 months of imprisonment. ( Id. at 40.)

Presently before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner asserts that his sentence for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 is invalid because it constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment." (Mot. at 10.) In support of his claim, Petitioner contends: (1) there was an unwarranted sentencing disparity between co-defendants; (2) his criminal history score was miscalculated; (3) it was improper to deny downward departure for a minor role; (4) he signed the plea agreement under threat of financial loss; (5) there was no evidence to support the 2-level upward departure for ...


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.