United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
A. TRAUGER U.S. District Judge
before the court are the Petitioner's pro se
Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside, Or
Correct Sentence (Docket No. 1); a Supplement To Motion To
Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence (Docket No. 10), filed
by counsel for the Petitioner; the Government's Response
(Docket No. 15); and the Petitioner's Reply (Docket No.
reasons set forth herein, the Motion Under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence (Docket No. 1)
and the Supplement To Motion To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct
Sentence (Docket No. 10) are DENIED, and this action is
Petitioner pled guilty to drug trafficking, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and being a convicted felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924. (Docket Nos. 13, 20, 21, 22 in
Case No. 3:13cr00155). Through the Plea Agreement, the
Petitioner acknowledged that he was a career offender under
the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and the parties
agreed to a total sentence of 151 months of imprisonment.
(Docket No. 22 in Case No. 3:13cr00155). At the subsequent
sentencing hearing, on March 4, 2014, the court imposed the
agreed 151-month sentence. (Docket Nos. 28, 29, 30 in Case
No.3:13cr00155). The record reveals that no appeal was taken.
28 U.S.C. § 2255 The 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
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
establish that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief on
the issues raised.
Johnson v. United States
Petitioner claims that his sentence should be vacated because
the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United
States, U.S., 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015)
undermines the validity of Section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing
Guidelines, the career offender guideline, which was applied
to him at sentencing. In 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 imposes
a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence for defendants convicted
of certain firearms offenses who have three previous
convictions for a “violent felony” or a