United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court are the Petitioner's Motion To Vacate,
Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence In Accordance With 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (Doc. No. 1), and the Government's Response.
(Doc. No. 4).
reasons set forth herein, the Petitioner's Motion (Doc.
No. 1) is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.
Procedural and Factual Background
underlying criminal case, the Petitioner pled guilty,
pursuant to a Plea Agreement, before now-retired Judge
William J. Haynes, Jr., to being a convicted felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924. (Doc. Nos. 34, 42, in Case No.
1:11cr00003). Through the Plea Agreement, the parties agreed
to a sentence of 100 months of imprisonment. (Id.)
At the subsequent sentencing hearing, on May 11, 2012, Judge
Haynes imposed the agreed 100-month sentence. (Doc. Nos. 41,
43, 44 in Case No. 1:11cr00003). The record indicates that no
appeal was taken.
The Section 2255 Remedy 28 U.S.C. Section 2255
provides federal prisoners with a statutory mechanism by
which to seek to have their sentence vacated, set aside or
(a) 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 the sentence.
U.S.C. § 2255(a).
order to obtain relief under Section 2255, the petitioner
must demonstrate constitutional error that had a
“‘substantial and injurious effect or influence
on the guilty plea or the jury's verdict.'”
Hamblen v. United States, 591 F.3d 471, 473 (6th
Cir. 2009)(quoting Griffin v. United States, 330
F.3d 733, 736 (6th Cir. 2003)).
court should hold an evidentiary hearing in a Section 2255
proceeding where a factual dispute arises, unless the
petitioner's allegations “‘cannot be accepted
as true because they are contradicted by the record,
inherently incredible, or [are] conclusions rather than
statements of fact.'” Ray v. United
States, 721 F.3d 758, 761 (6th Cir. 2013)(quoting
Arredondo v. United States, 178 F.3d 778, 782
(6th Cir. 1999)). In addition, no hearing is
required where “the record conclusively shows that the
petitioner is entitled to no relief.”
Arredondo, 178 F.3d at 782 (quoting Blanton v.
United States, 94 F.3d 227, 235 (6th Cir.
1996)). See also Fifer v. United States, 660
F.App'x 358, 359 (6th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016).
reviewed the pleadings, briefs and records filed in
Petitioner's underlying criminal case, as well as the
pleadings, briefs and records filed in this case, the Court
finds that it need not hold an evidentiary hearing in this
case to resolve the Petitioner's claims. The record
conclusively establishes that the Petitioner is not entitled
to relief on his claims for the reasons set forth herein.