United States District Court, S.D. Florida
BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court upon the Motion to Vacate
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, ECF No. 
(“Motion”), filed on January 23, 2018 by Movant
Nigel Christopher Martin (“Movant”). On February
28, 2018, the Court entered an order requiring the Government
to show cause why the Motion should not be granted. ECF No.
. The Government filed its response, ECF NO. 
(“Response”), on March 28, 2018, and Movant filed
a reply on April 6, 2018, ECF No.  (“Reply”).
On April 20, 2018, Movant filed a Motion for Expedited Ruling
on Post-Conviction Motion, ECF No. , advising the Court
that Movant is “days away from being deported to his
native Jamaica” and “request[ing] that the Court
make an expedited ruling on his case before his actual
deportation to Jamaica.” Id. ¶¶ 4-5.
The Court has reviewed the Motion, the memoranda in support
and opposition, the record, and is otherwise fully advised.
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
is a 26 year old native of Jamaica who engaged in a scheme to
make unauthorized credit card purchases at Home Depot through
the store's telephone transaction system. ECF No. 
¶ 8; see also No. 16-cr-60238, ECF No. 
(“Factual Proffer”). Based on this conduct, on
December 6, 2017, Movant was charged, along with three other
co-defendants, by a superseding indictment on three counts:
Count 1, Conspiracy to Commit Device Fraud under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1029(b)(2); Count 2, Access Device Fraud under 18
U.S.C. 1029(a)(2); and Count 9, Aggravated Identify Theft
under 18, U.S.C. § 1028(A)(a)(1). ECF No.  ¶ 1;
see also No. 16-cr-60238, ECF No. 
January 1, 2017, Movant entered into a plea agreement, No.
16-cr-60238, ECF No.  (“Plea Agreement”).
Pursuant to the Plea Agreement, Movant agreed to plead guilty
to Counts 2 and 9, and the Government agreed to seek
dismissal of Count 1 after sentencing. Id.
¶¶ 1-2. Paragraph 10 of the Plea Agreement stated
The defendant is aware that the sentence has not yet been
determined by the Court. The defendant also is aware that any
estimate of the probable sentencing range or sentence that
the defendant may receive, whether that estimate comes from
the defendant's attorney, this Office, or the probation
office, is a prediction, not a
promise, and is not binding on this Office, the
probation office or the Court.
Id. ¶ 10 (emphasis added). Regarding the
potential immigration consequences of Movant's plea,
Paragraph 16 of the Plea Agreement states:
Defendant recognizes that pleading guilty may have
consequences with respect to the defendant's immigration
status if the defendant is not a citizen of the United
States. Under federal law, a broad range of crimes are
removable offenses, including the offenses to
which defendant is pleading guilty. Removal and
other immigration consequences are the subject of a separate
proceeding, however, and defendant understands
that no one, including the defendant's attorney or the
Court, can predict to a certainty the effect of the
defendant's conviction on the defendant's immigration
status. Defendant nevertheless affirms that the
defendant wants to plead guilty regardless of any immigration
consequences that the defendant's plea may entail,
even if the consequence is the defendant's
automatic removal from the United States.
Id. at ¶ 16 (emphasis added). At the plea
hearing, Movant confirmed under oath that he had read and
understood the Plea Agreement, and that his attorney, Mr.
Gibson, had answered all of his questions regarding the Plea
Agreement. See No. 16-cr-60238, ECF No. 
(“Plea Tr.”) at 4, 21-22. Movant also confirmed
under oath that he had read and understood the Factual
Proffer, and he admitted that the facts contained in the
Factual Proffer were true, including that Capital One's
fraud loss related to the scheme was in excess of $200, 000.
See No. 16-cr-60238, ECF No.  at 2-3;  at
21-22;  at 19.
the plea colloquy the Court confirmed that Movant had
received no assurances related to his plea beyond what was
set forth in the Plea Agreement:
THE COURT: Has anyone made any promises or assurances of any
kind, other than what is set forth in the Plea Agreement, to
persuade you to enter into it?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
Id. at 4-5. Upon entry of his guilty plea as to
Count 2, the Court a second time asked Movant:
anyone made any promises or assurances to you, other than
what's set forth in the Plea Agreement, to persuade you
to plead guilty?” Id. at 6. Movant responded
“No, Your Honor.” Again, upon entry of his guilty
plea as to Count 9, the Court for a third time asked Movant:
“Has anyone made any promises or assurances to you,
other than what's set forth in ...