Nathan Ward v. United States

Citations: 858 F.3d 1072; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9929; 2017 WL 2414120Docket: 15-2599

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; June 5, 2017; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Nathan Ward, the petitioner-appellant, was convicted alongside codefendants for their roles in a stash-house robbery sting operation orchestrated by a confidential informant, Jeffrey Potts, working with the ATF. Ward's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Subsequently, he filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically noting that his trial attorney failed to present an entrapment defense and did not object to the government’s motion to exclude that defense. The district court denied his petition without a hearing. On appeal, the focus was on whether the lack of an entrapment defense constituted ineffective assistance. The background details revealed that Potts recruited codefendant Leslie Mayfield, who unknowingly engaged with undercover ATF Agent David Gomez in planning a robbery of a non-existent cocaine stash house. During a meeting on August 9, 2009, Ward participated actively in the conspiracy, discussing the robbery logistics and expressing concerns about the guards at the stash house. After the group confirmed their commitment to the plan, ATF agents arrested them. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the district court's denial of Ward's petition.

ATF agents searched a van driven by Ward, recovering three masks, several firearms with ammunition, two bulletproof vests, latex gloves, and a large duffle bag. Ward and co-defendants were charged with conspiracy and attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine, possession of firearms during a drug trafficking offense, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. They were tried together in July 2010, with a pre-trial motion from the government to exclude entrapment defenses, to which only Mayfield objected. The district court granted the government's request. Ward did not testify, while Mayfield claimed he had no prior connections to Ward and only contacted Kindle about the robbery shortly before it occurred. The jury convicted Ward on all counts, leading to a 270-month sentence. An initial appeal affirmed his conviction, which was later reinstated. In December 2013, Ward filed a pro se 2255 petition, which the district court denied without an evidentiary hearing, rejecting his ineffective assistance claim regarding the failure to pursue an entrapment defense. The court found no evidence to support such a defense. Ward's appeal was granted a certificate of appealability. In reviewing the denial of his petition, the court will assess the legal conclusions de novo, factual findings for clear error, and the decision not to hold a hearing for abuse of discretion. Ward argues his counsel was ineffective, asserting that if an entrapment defense had been raised, the trial outcome might have differed. Entrapment requires proof that the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime before government intervention and that the government induced the crime.

The entrapment defense requires two elements: government inducement and lack of predisposition. If the government has not induced the crime, the defense is unavailable without further inquiry into predisposition. Inducement involves government solicitation plus conduct that risks leading a person, who would not otherwise commit the crime, to do so in response to governmental actions. Ward claims he was induced both vicariously through Mayfield and directly by Gomez. However, the government argues that Ward was actually recruited by Kindle, not Mayfield, and this distinction negates his derivative entrapment claim. In the precedent case United States v. Hollingsworth, the court ruled that a first entrapee must directly involve and solicit the crime for a derivative defense to apply, which does not apply here as Ward was not induced by Mayfield. Additionally, Ward's argument about inducement by Gomez fails because he cannot provide evidence of unlawful inducement; Gomez merely provided an opportunity for a typical robbery, which does not constitute entrapment. Consequently, since there is no evidence of unlawful inducement, an entrapment defense would not succeed, and Ward’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise it.

Furthermore, Ward argues the district court erred by dismissing his petition without an evidentiary hearing. However, a hearing is unnecessary when the record conclusively shows the prisoner is not entitled to relief. The court determined that Ward's record firmly indicated he was not entitled to relief, thus affirming the district court’s dismissal of his petition without a hearing. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.