Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Green v. United States

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

March 27, 2017

DANIEL W. GREEN
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

          MEMORANDUM

          KEVIN H. SHARP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. Introduction

          Pending before the Court is a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence (Docket Nos. 1, 8), filed by the Movant/Petitioner, pro se. The Government has filed a Response (Docket No. 18) in opposition to the Motion.

         For the reasons set forth herein, Petitioner's Motion (Docket No. 1) is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.

         II. Procedural and Factual Background

          In the underlying criminal case, the Petitioner was charged with two counts of production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and one count of receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A). (Docket No. 1 in Case No. 3:10-cr-00098). The Sixth Circuit described the facts underlying the charges as follows:

In late 2009, Green's seven- and ten-year-old step-granddaughters told their grandmother that Green had been molesting them for at least a year. A search of Green's home confirmed that Green videotaped and photographed himself molesting the girls on multiple occasions. The search also revealed that Green downloaded numerous images and videos depicting the sexual exploitation of minors.

(Docket No. 170, at 1, in Case No. 3:10-00098); United States v. Daniel W. Green, 608 F.App'x 383, 384, 2015 WL 3559196 (6th Cir. 2015).

         On the second day of his trial, after the victims' grandmother had testified, the Petitioner pled guilty, without a plea agreement, before now-retired Judge Todd J. Campbell. (Docket Nos. 83, 142, 169 in Case No. 3:10-cr-00098). At the subsequent sentencing hearing, Judge Campbell determined that the initial sentencing guideline range was life imprisonment, based on Petitioner's offense level of 48, reduced to 43 because the Sentencing Table tops out at 43, and Criminal History Category I. (Docket No. 162, at 3-7, in Case No. 3:10-00098). Because the statutory maximum for Counts One and Two was 15 years, and the statutory maximum for Count Three was 20 years, however, the maximum sentence was 960 months, or 80 years. (Id.) After consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, Judge Campbell determined that the sentences on each of the three counts should run consecutively, and imposed a total sentence of 960 months. (Docket Nos. 157, 158, 159, 162 in Case No. 3:10-cr-00098).

         The Petitioner appealed the validity of his guilty plea and the reasonableness of his sentence, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. (Docket Nos. 160, 170, 175 in Case No. 3:10-cr-00098); United States v. Daniel W. Green, supra.

         III. Analysis

         A. The Petitioner's Claims

         The Petitioner contends that his convictions and sentence should be vacated because he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

         B. The Section 2255 Remedy

         Section 2255 provides federal prisoners with a statutory mechanism by which to seek to have their sentence vacated, set aside or corrected.[1] 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 Cir. 2003)).

         An 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.

         The Court has reviewed the pleadings, briefs and records filed in Petitioner's underlying criminal case, as well as the pleadings, briefs and records 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.

         C. Ineffective ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.