The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Ronnie Greer United States District Judge
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER*fn1
This matter is before the Court to address a Motion to Vacate, Correct or Set Aside a Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.[Doc. 405, 1] The petitioner, Harvey E. Page ["Page"], has raised seventeen issues in his pro se motion and his court appointed counsel has added one additional issue.*fn2
This case involved a conspiracy to distribute cocaine base (or "crack") which occurred from on or about May, 1996, until approximately August 15, 1997. Keith Linton, David Hill, Thomas Powers, and others would transport crack and powder cocaine from Florida to Tennessee. Linton and Hill would then have the powder cocaine made into crack and would distribute the crack to Powers, Page and other indicted and unindicted individuals in order to facilitate additional sales in Tennessee. The petitioner was found guilty by a jury of Count 1 which charged a conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute an unspecified amount of crack. He was not charged in any other counts of the indictment. After finding that 1.5 kilos of crack were attributable to the petitioner, the court sentenced him to 360 months imprisonment.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit vacated the petitioner's thirty-year sentence and remanded for re-sentencing in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The Sixth Circuit found an unpreserved "plain error" because the district court's attribution of at least 1.5 kilograms of crack to the petitioner triggered a guideline range of thirty years to life. However, under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), the statutory maximum penalty for a conspiracy involving an unspecified amount of crack was twenty years. United States v. Page, 232 F.3d 536, 542-45 (6th Cir.2000).
Following remand, the district court sentenced Page to twenty years of imprisonment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the petitioner's amended judgment of conviction and sentence on appeal and held that the district court's determination of a drug quantity for sentencing purposes did not violate Apprendi, the government's failure to allege a drug quantity in the indictment did not render the indictment constitutionally infirm, and the defendant's federal narcotics prosecution and sentencing did not deprive him of his due process and trial by jury rights. United States v. Page, 58 Fed.Appx. 79 (6th Cir. 2003) (Not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter).
This Court must vacate and set aside petitioner's sentence if it finds that "the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Under Rule 4 of the Governing Rules, the Court is to consider initially whether the face of the motion itself, together with the annexed exhibits and prior proceedings in the case, reveal the movant is not entitled to relief. If it plainly appears the movant is not entitled to relief, the court may summarily dismiss the § 2255 motion under Rule 4.
When a defendant files a § 2255 motion, he must set forth facts which entitle his to relief. Green v. Wingo, 454 F. 2d 52, 53 (6th Cir. 1972); O'Malley v. United States, 285 F. 2d 733, 735 (6th Cir. 1961). "Conclusions, not substantiated by allegations of fact with some probability of verity, are not sufficient to warrant a hearing." O'Malley, 285 F. 2d at 735 (citations omitted). A motion that merely states general conclusions of law without substantiating allegations with facts is without legal merit. Loum v. Underwood, 262 F. 2d 866, 867 (6th Cir. 1959); United States v. Johnson, 940 F. Supp. 167, 171 (W.D. Tenn. 1996).
To warrant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because of constitutional error, the error must be one of constitutional magnitude which had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the proceedings. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993) (citation omitted) (§ 2254 case); Clemmons v. Sowders, 34 F. 3d 352, 354 (6th Cir. 1994). See also United States v. Cappas, 29 F. 3d 1187, 1193 (7th Cir. 1994) (applying Brecht to a § 2255 motion). If the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction, then the conviction is void and must be set aside. Williams v. United States, 582 F. 2d 1039, 1041 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 (1978). To warrant relief for a non-constitutional error, petitioner must show a fundamental defect in the proceeding that resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice or an egregious error inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure. Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 354 (1994); Grant v. United States, 72 F. 3d 503, 506 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1200 (1996). In order to obtain collateral relief under § 2255, a petitioner must clear a significantly higher hurdle than would exist on direct appeal. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982).
The Supreme Court has established a two-pronged test for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). To prevail under that test, Page must show both (1) that counsel's performance was deficient and (2) that this deficiency prejudiced him. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; Gillette v. Tansy, 17 F.3d 308, 310 (10th Cir. 1994).
Judicial scrutiny of the adequacy of attorney performance must be strongly deferential: "[A] court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Moreover, the reasonableness of the challenged conduct must be evaluated from counsel's perspective at the time of the alleged error; "every effort should be made to 'eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight.' " Edens v. Hannigan, 87 F.3d 1109, 1114 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689); accord Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 381, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986).
Issues Resolved on Direct Appeal
As an initial matter, it is clearly settled that once an issue has been adjudicated on direct appeal, it cannot be revisited under the guise of a motion to vacate. See Stephan v. United States, 496 F.2d 527, 528-29 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 861 (1975). The following issues raised by the petitioner were resolved on direct appeal and cannot serve as a basis for relief in this § 2255 motion:*fn3
1. Counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the court ruled that a statement couldn't be used but the government presented contents of the statement;*fn4
2. Counsel is ineffective for failing to raise on appeal that the movant's statement was not voluntary;
3. The District Judge's interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines for base offense level 38 was clear error;
4. The District Judge's adoption of findings of fact exclusively from the PSR cannot be sustained ...