United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division
A.TRAUGER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the court are the Petitioner's Motion To Correct
Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docket No. 1), the
Government's Response (Docket No. 7), and the
Petitioner's Reply (Docket No. 11).
reasons set forth herein, the Motion To Correct Sentence
(Docket No. 1) is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.
Petitioner pled guilty to participation in a drug trafficking
conspiracy involving Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, and Alprazolam,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. (Docket Nos.
552, 553, 554, 729 in Case No. 2:11cr00002). The Plea
Agreement contemplated cooperation by the Petitioner
potentially leading to a Government motion for downward
departure from the applicable guideline range at sentencing
for substantial assistance. (Id.) At the subsequent
sentencing hearing, on August 6, 2012, the court granted the
Government's motion for downward departure and imposed a
sentence of 75 months of imprisonment. (Docket Nos. 1131,
1134, 1135, 1958 in Case No. 2:11cr00002). The record
indicates that no appeal was taken.
March 27, 2015, the Petitioner filed a motion seeking a
sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing
Guidelines. (Docket No. 1898 in Case No. 2:11cr00002).
Amendment 782, which went into effect on November 1, 2014,
reduced by two the offense levels assigned in the Drug
Quantity Table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, resulting in lower
guideline ranges for most drug trafficking offenses. The
court ultimately denied the Petitioner's motion, however,
because reduction of the offense level pursuant to Amendment
782 resulted in the application of the career offender
sentencing guideline, and the Petitioner's sentencing
guideline range remained the same. (Docket No. 1996 in Case
U.S.C. § 2255
Petitioner has brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. Section 2255 provides a statutory mechanism for
challenging the imposition of a federal sentence:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established
by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the
ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court
was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the
sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or
is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court
which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). In order to obtain 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)).
factual dispute arises in a § 2255 proceeding, the court
is to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the dispute.
Ray v. United States, 721 F.3d 758, 761 (6th Cir.
2013). An evidentiary hearing is not required, however, if
the record conclusively shows that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); Ray,
721 F.3d at 761; Arredondo v. United States, 178
F.3d 778, 782 (6th Cir. 1999). A hearing is also
unnecessary “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.'”
reviewed the pleadings, briefs, and records filed in the
Petitioner's underlying criminal case, as well as the
filings in this case, the court finds it unnecessary to hold
an evidentiary hearing because the records conclusively