Smith v. United States — Entry #19: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Movant Cordell Victor Jerome Smith filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C

Case 3:23-cv-02338-K     Document 19     Filed 04/14/26    Page 1 of 6    PageID 68


                  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                  FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                            DALLAS DIVISION

CORDELL VICTOR JEROME SMITH,              §
#58759-177,                               §
           Movant,                        §
                                          §   CIVIL NO. 3:23-CV-2338-K
v.                                        §   (CRIMINAL NO. 3:19-CR-187-K-1)
                                          §
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                 §
         Respondent.                      §

                   MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

      Movant Cordell Victor Jerome Smith filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1). For the

reasons detailed herein, Smith’s motion is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE.

                                I. BACKGROUND

      Smith challenges his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) federal convictions and sentences in

Cause No. 3:19-CR-187-K-1.       The respondent is the United States of America

(“Government”).

A. Conviction and Sentencing

      After being charged with 16 counts in a multi-defendant, 16-count indictment,

Smith pled guilty under a plea agreement to two counts of interference with

commerce by robbery and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a)

and 2 (“Counts 4 and 14”), and two counts of using, carrying, brandishing, and

discharging a firearm during and in relation to, and possessing, brandishing, and


                                     Page 1 of 6


 Case 3:23-cv-02338-K     Document 19     Filed 04/14/26    Page 2 of 6    PageID 69


discharging a firearm in furtherance of, a crime of violence, and aiding and abetting,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2 (“Counts 5 and 15”). See Crim.

Docs. 1, 83, 98.    Among other provisions, Smith’s plea agreement contained an

appeal and collateral review waiver. See Crim. Doc. 83 at 7. In that waiver, Smith

waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentences and his right to otherwise

contest his convictions and sentences in a collateral proceeding, including under

Section 2255, except that he reserved the right (a) to bring a direct appeal of a

sentence exceeding the statutory maximum punishment or an arithmetic error at

sentencing, (b) to challenge the voluntariness of any of his guilty pleas or the appeal

and collateral review waiver, and (c) to bring a claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel. See id.

      At his re-arraignment on June 2, 2020, Smith acknowledged under oath that

he understood the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, and that he was waiving

his right to appeal or otherwise challenge his convictions or sentences except in the

limited circumstances of directly appealing a sentence that exceeds the statutory

maximum or math errors at sentencing, challenging the voluntariness of his guilty

plea or the appeal and collateral review waiver, and bringing a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. See Crim. Doc. 344 at 11-13, 22. Smith further acknowledged

that he voluntarily and freely entered into the plea agreement, and that aside from

what was contained in his plea documents, no one made any other promise or

assurance to him of any kind to get him to plead guilty. See id. at 23. The Court


                                     Page 2 of 6


 Case 3:23-cv-02338-K      Document 19    Filed 04/14/26     Page 3 of 6   PageID 70


found that his guilty pleas were knowing and voluntary. See id. at 26-27; Crim Docs.

99, 109.

      By judgment dated October 5, 2022, the Court sentenced Smith to a total

imprisonment term of 260 months, comprised of 20 months on each of Counts 4 and

14, to run concurrent with each other, and 120 months on each of Counts 5 and 15,

to run consecutive to each other and consecutive to the terms imposed on Counts 4

and 14. See Crim. Doc. 274. His imprisonment is to be followed by three years of

supervised release. See id. Smith did not appeal the judgment.

B. Substantive Claim

      Smith timely filed this Section 2255 motion on October 13, 2023, and

asserted one ground for relief:

      I believe one of my 924(c)(iii) counts should be vacated due to 3553(a)
      sentencing disparity. My cocon[s]pirator Freddie Lee Valentine pled
      guilty to the same charges as me and rec[ei]ved just about 10 years less
      than me. Which show[s] a huge sentence difference. We would both
      have around the same time if my 924(c)(iii) were to get vacated, or just
      simply was ran consecutive with my other 924(c)(iii) count.

Doc. 1 at 4 (capitalization altered). The Government filed a response on February

26, 2024. See Doc. 11. Smith did not file a reply.

                      II. SCOPE OF RELIEF UNDER § 2255

      After conviction and exhaustion or waiver of the right to direct appeal, the

Court presumes that a defendant has been fairly and finally convicted. United States

v. Cervantes, 132 F.3d 1106, 1109 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Shaid, 937

F.2d 228, 231-32 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc)).         Post-conviction “[r]elief under 28


                                     Page 3 of 6


 Case 3:23-cv-02338-K      Document 19      Filed 04/14/26    Page 4 of 6    PageID 71


U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow

range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and would, if

condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Gaudet, 81 F.3d

585, 589 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also

United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 595 (5th Cir. 2001) (“A defendant can challenge

a final conviction, but only on issues of constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude.”).

                                     III. WAIVER

      In his only ground for relief, Smith contends that, because of a sentencing

disparity between his aggregate sentence and the lower aggregate sentence of a co-

defendant, the Court should vacate one of his § 924(c) sentences or run his two

§ 924(c) sentences concurrent with each other. See Doc. 1 at 4, 13. The Government

argues that his claim is barred by the collateral review waiver in his plea agreement,

procedurally defaulted, and meritless. See Doc. 11 at 5-6.

      The plea agreement waiver in this case bars all claims on collateral review

under Section 2255, except for those that go to the voluntariness of Smith’s guilty

plea or the appeal waiver and the ineffectiveness of counsel. See Doc. 83 at 7. Smith

does not challenge the voluntariness of his guilty plea or the collateral review waiver,

nor does he contend in his claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

Accordingly, even if the Court assumes arguendo that Smith’s claim is cognizable

under Section 2255, it is barred by his informed and voluntary collateral review

waiver.


                                      Page 4 of 6


 Case 3:23-cv-02338-K      Document 19     Filed 04/14/26    Page 5 of 6      PageID 72


      The Court notes that the Fifth Circuit recognizes exceptions to an informed

and voluntary plea agreement waiver where ineffective assistance of counsel claims

affecting the validity of the collateral review waiver or guilty plea are involved, and

“‘where the sentence facially (or perhaps indisputably) exceeds the statutory limits.’”

United States v. Hollins, 97 F. App’x 477, 479 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v.

White, 307 F.3d 335, 343 n.4 (5th Cir. 2002)). These exceptions are inapplicable

here; Smith does not claim that his counsel was ineffective in any way that affected

the validity of his collateral review waiver or guilty plea, and he does not allege that

any of his sentences exceeded the applicable statutory maximum. He therefore has

failed to show that an exception to his plea agreement waiver applies.

      Because Smith’s claim is barred by the knowing and voluntary collateral review

waiver in his plea agreement, and because he has failed to show that any exception to

that waiver applies, he is not entitled to Section 2255 relief on his claim. The Court

therefore denies Smith’s sole claim on this basis.     Additionally, to the extent the

Government argues in the alternative that Smith’s claim is procedurally barred and

without merit, the Court does not address these arguments given that Smith’s claim is

barred by the collateral review waiver in his plea agreement, as discussed.

                           IV. EVIDENTIARY HEARING

      To the extent Smith requests an evidentiary hearing on his claim, an

evidentiary hearing under Section 2255 is not required when “the motion and the

files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no


                                      Page 5 of 6


 Case 3:23-cv-02338-K      Document 19    Filed 04/14/26    Page 6 of 6   PageID 73


relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). A movant “is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his

§ 2255 motion only if he presents ‘independent indicia of the likely merit of [his]

allegations.’”   United States v. Reed, 719 F.3d 369, 373 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation

omitted). Because Smith has failed to present independent indicia in support of the

likely merit of his claim, he has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to an

evidentiary hearing.

                                  V. CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, Smith’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set

Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) is DENIED, and this

action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

       SO ORDERED.

       Signed April 14th, 2026.


                                              ____________________________________
                                              ED KINKEADE
                                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


                                     Page 6 of 6