United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
J. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court are the Petitioner's Motion For Sentence
Reduction And Vacatur Of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) Pursuant
To 18 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) - Johnson Claim (Docket Nos.
1, 11), and the Government's Response (Docket No. 12) in
reasons set forth herein, the Motion For Sentence Reduction
(Docket No. 1) is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.
underlying criminal case, the Petitioner pled guilty,
pursuant to a Plea Agreement, to being a convicted felon in
possession of a firearm, and with distributing marijuana.
(Docket Nos. 1, 17, 18 in Case No. 3:13-00235). At the
subsequent sentencing hearing, the Court determined that the
Petitioner's advisory sentencing guideline range was
100-125 months, based on a total offense level of 27 and
criminal history category IV. (Docket Nos. 25, 26 in Case No.
3:13-00235). The Court applied United States Sentencing
Guideline 2K2.1 in determining the total offense level, which
required an increase for the Petitioner's prior felony
drug conviction. The Court sentenced the Petitioner outside
the advisory guideline range to a sentence of 87 months,
based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
The Section 2255 Remedy
2255 provides federal prisoners with a statutory mechanism by
which to seek to have their sentence vacated, set aside or
corrected. The statute does not provide a remedy,
however, for every error that may have been made in the
proceedings leading to conviction. “‘To warrant
relief under section 2255, a petitioner must demonstrate the
existence of an error of constitutional magnitude which had a
substantial and injurious effect or influence on the guilty
plea or the jury's verdict.'” Humphress v.
United States, 398 F.3d 855, 858 (6th Cir. 2005)(quoting
Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733, 736 (6th
evidentiary hearing is not required if the record
conclusively shows that the Petitioner is not entitled to
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); Ray v. United
States, 721 F.3d 758, 761 (6th Cir. 2013); Arredondo
v. United States, 178 F.3d 778, 782 (6th Cir.
1999). No hearing is required “if the petitioner's
allegations ‘cannot be accepted as true because they
are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or
conclusions rather than statements of fact.'”
Id. Where the same judge considering the Section
2255 motion also presided over the underlying criminal
proceedings, the judge may rely on his own recollection of
those proceedings. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S.
63, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629 n.4, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977);
Ray, 721 F.3d at 761.
Court has reviewed the pleadings, briefs, and records filed
in Petitioner's underlying criminal case, as well as the
pleadings and briefs filed by the parties in this case. The
Court finds it unnecessary to hold an evidentiary hearing
because these records conclusively establish that Petitioner
is not entitled to relief on the issues raised.
Johnson v. United States
Petitioner requests that the Court apply the decision in
Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) to
reduce his sentence. The Government argues that the
Johnson decision does not apply.
Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the so-called
“residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal
Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), is
unconstitutionally vague. The ACCA provides for a 15-year
mandatory minimum sentence for defendants convicted of
certain firearms offenses who have three previous convictions
for a “violent felony” or a “serious drug
offense.” 18 U.S.C. § ...