United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
A. TRAUGER U.S. 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 (Docket No. 1), and the Government's Response
(Docket No. 4). For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion
To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence In Accordance With
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docket No. 1) is DENIED, and this
action is DISMISSED.
Petitioner pled guilty in this case to unlawful possession of
firearms by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924; and manufacturing counterfeit
federal reserve notes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471.
(Docket Nos. 47, 48, 49 in Case No. 3:11cr00227). Through the
Plea Agreement, the Government agreed to dismiss the
remaining two counts of the Indictment at sentencing. (Docket
No. 49 in Case No. 3:11cr00227). At the subsequent sentencing
hearing, on September 20, 2012, the court imposed a total
sentence of 100 months of imprisonment. (Docket Nos. 63, 65,
66 in Case No. 3:11cr00227). The record indicates that no
appeal was taken.
28 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
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 2K2.1 of the
Sentencing Guidelines, which was used to determine his
offense level 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