United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville
VICTOR M. LYNN, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Jordan United States District Judge.
the Court are two substantively identical requests to amend
Petitioner's pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to
include a request for collateral relief based on Johnson
v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) [Docs. 1002,
1014]. Also before the Court is Petitioner's request for
an extension of time to file a reply to the United
States' response in opposition [Doc. 1000]. For the
following reasons, this Court's previous Order addressing
these same three motions [Doc. 1015] is
VACATED on the basis of clerical error,
Petitioner's motion for an extension of time [Doc. 1000]
is GRANTED nunc pro tunc, and
Petitioner's requests to amend his original petition
[Docs. 1003, 1014] are DENIED.
2014, Petitioner pled guilty to conspiring to distribute
fifty grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) [Docs. 398,
460, 953]. In promulgating Petitioner's Presentence
Investigation Report (“PSR”), the United States
Probation Office determined the relevant guideline range to
be 360 months to life, restricted statutory minimum term of
life imprisonment [PSR ¶ 74-84, 109, 110]. On April 2,
2015, the Court sentenced Petitioner to 262 months'
imprisonment followed by ten years' supervised release
[Doc. 953]. No appeal was taken and, as a result,
Petitioner's conviction became final for purposes of
§ 2255(f)(1) on April 16, 2015, at the expiration of
time to appeal. See Sanchez-Castellano v. United
States, 358 F.3d 424, 428 (6th Cir. 2004) (explaining an
unappealed judgment of conviction becomes final when the time
for filing a direct appeal has elapsed); Fed. R. App. Proc.
4(b)(1)(A)(i) (“In a criminal case, a defendant's
notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within
14 days after . . . the entry of . . . judgment.”).
September 18, 2015, Petitioner filed a pro se collateral
challenge seeking vacatur of his sentence and conviction
based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)
and ineffective assistance [Doc. 975]. On June 26, 2016, the
Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the Armed
Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. §
924(e), was unconstitutionally vague. Citing that decision,
Petitioner seeks to amend his petition to include a third
challenge [Doc. 1014 (suggesting the Johnson
decision somehow undermines his sentence)].
REQUEST FOR AN EXTENTION OF TIME TO REPLY
February 11, 2016, Petitioner requested an extension of time
to reply to the United States' response in opposition to
Johnson-based collateral relief [Doc. 1000]. Before
this Court could rule on that motion, however, Petitioner
submitted a joint “reply to response and motion to
amend” [Doc. 1014]. In light of this development,
Petitioner's request for an extension will be GRANTED
nunc pro tunc and the contents of joint reply and motion
amend will be considered so far as they traverse arguments
made by the United States' in its response.
REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
it is true that Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that leave to amend should “be
freely given when justice so requires, ” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a), relevant factors include “undue delay in filing,
lack of notice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving
party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous
amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and
futility of amendment.” Anderson v. Young
Touchstone Co., 735 F.Supp.2d 831, 833 (W.D. Tenn. 2010)
(quoting Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1965)).
argument that he no longer possesses predicate offenses
sufficient to support his categorization as an armed career
criminal under § 924(e), career-offender under Section
4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, or an
enhanced base offense level under Section 2K2.1 of the same
fails because his PSR demonstrates that he was never
subjected to enhancement under any of those provisions [PSR
¶¶ 74-84, 109, 110]. As such, the Johnson
decision has no effect on the validity of his sentence.
Accordingly, Petitioner's requests for leave to amend his
previously-filed petition to include such a claim are
DENIED for futility.
PREVIOUS ORDER OF THIS COURT
come to the attention of this Court that its May 27, 2016
Order contains a typographical error. Specifically, the Order
directs the Clerk's office to terminate “Doc.
1004” as a duplicate of “Doc. 1003” [Doc.
1015 p. 2], but review of CM/ECF makes clear that the
reference to “Doc. 1004” should read “Doc.
1014” [E.D. Tenn. Case No. 3:14-cr-2-RLJ-CCS-3]. In
light of this inadvertent error, the Order is VACATED and the
Clerk's Office is DIRECTED to strike the filing from
CM/ECF and enter the instant, substantively identical Order,
in its place.
reasons discussed, this Court's previous Order [Doc.
1015] is VACATED for clerical error, Petitioner's motion
for an extension of time [Doc. 1000] is GRANTED nunc pro
tunc, and Petitioner's requests to amend ...