Order Denying Defendant’s Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 — No. 2:22-cr-00057 (Dkt. 259, E.D. Wash.)

Summary

Order Denying Defendant's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ECF No. 259 filed April 10, 2026 in United States v. Tyler Keith Andrews, No. 2:22-CR-0057-TOR-2 in the Eastern District of Washington. Andrews pleaded guilty on September 21, 2023 to Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, under a plea agreement (ECF No. 110) in which he waived any post-conviction motion other than an ineffective-assistance claim based on information he did not know; he was sentenced to 196 months. His pro se motion to vacate (ECF No. 232), filed December 11, 2025, contends he was not responsible for the losses in the case. Thomas O. Rice, United States District Judge, finds the waiver bars the motion and that the record shows no fundamental defect, denies it without an evidentiary hearing, denies a certificate of appealability, and closes the file.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Order Denying Defendant’s Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 — No. 2:22-cr-00057 (Dkt. 259, E.D. Wash.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/order-denying-defendant-s-motion-under-28-u-s-c-2255-no-2-22-cr-00057-1ff8df005d/, SHA-256 df92fbcc8d3ba42d2fc93dc2d4c7b7c5671f011957e50d3d03f682d622101cae.

Full text

Case 2:22-cr-00057-TOR ECF No. 259 filed 04/10/26 PageID.1209 Page 1
of 4
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

1
Apr 10, 2026
2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6

7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
NO: 2:22-CR-0057-TOR-2
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
9 v. MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255

10 TYLER KEITH ANDREWS,

11 Defendant.

12 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant’s pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C.

13 § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. ECF No. 232. The Court has

14 reviewed the record and files herein and is fully informed. Because the files and

15 records of the case conclusively show that Defendant is entitled to no relief, the

16 Court denies the motion to vacate.

17 BACKGROUND

18 On September 21, 2023, Defendant appeared before the Court and entered a

19 plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment, charging him with

20 Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud. ECF No. 110. According to the Plea

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ~ 1
Case 2:22-cr-00057-TOR ECF No. 259 filed 04/10/26 PageID.1210 Page 2
of 4

1 Agreement, Defendant expressly waived his right to file any post-conviction

2 motion attacking his conviction and sentence including a motion pursuant to 28

3 U.S.C. § 2255, except one based upon ineffective assistance of counsel based on

4 information not known by the Defendant. Id. at ¶ 19.

5 A Presentence Investigative Report (PSIR) was prepared in this case.

6 Defendant was sentenced to 196-months incarceration.

7 On December 11, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion seeking to vacate

8 his conviction. ECF No. 232. Essentially, Defendant contends that he was not

9 responsible for the losses in this case.

10 The Court finds that the issues raised do not require an evidentiary hearing.

11 See Rule 8, Rules—Section 2255 Proceedings. The transcripts, records and

12 materials filed in this proceeding adequately document the issues for resolution.

13 A. Waiver of Rights to Appeal and File Any Post-Conviction Motion

14 This Court finds Defendant waived his right to file the instant motion.

15 Defendant expressly waived his right to file any post-conviction motion attacking

16 his conviction and sentence including a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

17 except one based upon ineffective assistance of counsel based on information not

18 known by the Defendant. ECF No. 110 at ¶ 19.

19 B. Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

20 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides four grounds under which a federal court

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ~ 2
Case 2:22-cr-00057-TOR ECF No. 259 filed 04/10/26 PageID.1211 Page 3
of 4

1 may grant relief to a federal prisoner who challenges a sentence of incarceration:

2 (1) “that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution of laws of the

3 United States;” (2) “that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such

4 sentence;” (3) “that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by

5 law;” and (4) that the sentence “is otherwise subject to collateral attack[.]” 28

6 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted this to encompass

7 only errors that constitute a “fundamental defect which inherently results in a

8 complete miscarriage of justice” or “an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary

9 demands of fair procedure.” United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783 (1979)

10 (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962)). While the remedy is in

11 this sense comprehensive, it does not encompass all claimed errors in conviction

12 and sentencing. United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979).

13 The Presentence Investigation Report captured all the losses and none of that

14 was objected to at the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, Defendant has not

15 established a constitutional violation or other right to relief.

16 C. Certificate of Appealability

17 A petitioner seeking post-conviction relief may appeal a district court’s

18 dismissal of the court’s final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 only

19 after obtaining a certificate of appealability (“COA”) from a district or circuit

20 judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A COA may issue only where the applicant has

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ~ 3
Case 2:22-cr-00057-TOR ECF No. 259 filed 04/10/26 PageID.1212 Page 4
of 4

1 made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See id.

2 § 2253(c)(2). To satisfy this standard, the applicant must “show that reasonable

3 jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should

4 have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate

5 to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

6 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

7 The Court concludes that Defendant is not entitled to a COA because he has

8 not demonstrated that jurists of reason could disagree with this Court’s resolution

9 or conclude the issues presented deserve encouragement to proceed further.

10 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

11 1. Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28

12 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 232) is DENIED.

13 2. The Court further certifies that there is no basis upon which to issue a

14 certificate of appealability and the same is DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

15 Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

16 The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order and

17 furnish copies to the parties. This file shall be CLOSED.

18 DATED April 10, 2026.

20 THOMAS O. RICE
United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ~ 4

File and source

File: 259.pdf
Size: 222,366 bytes
SHA-256: df92fbcc8d3ba42d2fc93dc2d4c7b7c5671f011957e50d3d03f682d622101cae
Our copy: 259.pdf
Original: No public link identified.