NEWARK, NJ – A convicted wire fraud defendant’s effort to erase his prison sentence hit a dead end this week after a federal judge ruled that claims of undisclosed rent evidence were not enough to overturn his guilty plea and 27-month term.
David Buckingham, who pleaded guilty in 2022 to wire fraud and failing to pay over taxes, argued in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that the government had withheld evidence suggesting some of his personal expenses were pre-approved by the alleged victim. He claimed this information could have impacted sentencing and undermined the wire fraud charge itself. But U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden ruled Tuesday that Buckingham’s arguments were legally and factually insufficient.
Buckingham was indicted on five counts of wire fraud before striking a plea deal that reduced the charges to two counts. Under that deal, he admitted to a loss of $356,725.74 and an additional $277,051.25 in unpaid taxes, accepting full responsibility in open court. The judge found he had knowingly waived his rights to appeal or collaterally attack any sentence within the agreed range — which included the 27-month sentence he ultimately received.
The court transcripts showed Buckingham affirming under oath that he had reviewed the plea agreement with his attorney and understood all its terms. He did not file a direct appeal following his conviction and began serving his sentence shortly after sentencing in October 2022.
In his post-conviction motion, Buckingham claimed that newly discovered evidence could have affected how the loss amount was calculated, potentially reducing his sentencing range. He also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and improper calculation of financial damages.
But the judge rejected those claims, noting that Buckingham had already accepted the loss figures as part of the plea and failed to show that any of the alleged omissions would have changed the outcome. The court also found that none of the evidence met the legal threshold for withholding under Brady v. Maryland, which governs prosecutorial disclosure obligations.
Judge Hayden also denied Buckingham a certificate of appealability, finding that his arguments did not raise substantial legal questions.
The ruling brings an end to Buckingham’s post-conviction efforts in the district court, though he may still petition a federal appellate court for review.
