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.

Blevins v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee

August 25, 2017

JOE S. BLEVINS, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          CURTIS L. COLLIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Petitioner's pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. 1296]. He bases the request for relief on Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), in which the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), was unconstitutionally vague [Id.]. The United States responded in opposition on July 25, 2016 [Doc. 1301]. Petitioner did not reply and the time for doing so has now passed. E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1, 7.2. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner's § 2255 motion [Doc. 1296] will be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In 2007, Petitioner pleaded guilty and was convicted of conspiring to manufacture and distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) [Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) ¶¶ 2, 13-14]. The United States Probation Office held Petitioner responsible for 1.931 kilograms of methamphetamine mixture, which yielded a base offense level of thirty-four and, after a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, a total offense level of thirty-one [Id. ¶¶ 28, 34, 37]. The PSR assigned Petitioner six criminal history points because of his two prior convictions-a Tennessee conviction for manufacturing a controlled substance and an Alabama conviction for possessing a short-barrel shotgun, resulting in a Guideline range of 151 to 188 months' imprisonment [Id. ¶¶ 40-42, 59]. The United States filed a timely notice of enhancement in accordance with § 851, meaning Petitioner faced an enhanced 240-month mandatory minimum [Id. ¶¶ 57-59; Doc. 451]. This Court sentenced Petitioner to 240 months' imprisonment [Docs. 676, 903], Petitioner appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on April 30, 2009 [Doc. 1024].

         Seven years later-on June 17, 2016-Petitioner submitted the instant motion seeking collateral relief in light of the Johnson decision [Doc. 1296].

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The relief authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 “does not encompass all claimed errors in conviction and sentencing.” United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979). Rather, a petitioner must demonstrate “(1) an error of constitutional magnitude; (2) a sentence imposed outside the statutory limits; or (3) an error of fact or law . . . so fundamental as to render the entire proceeding invalid.” Short v. United States, 471 F.3d 686, 691 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mallett v. United States, 334 F.3d 491, 496-97 (6th Cir. 2003)). He “must clear a significantly higher hurdle than would exist on direct appeal” and establish a “fundamental defect in the proceedings which necessarily results in a complete miscarriage of justice or an egregious error violative of due process.” Fair v. United States, 157 F.3d 427, 430 (6th Cir. 1998).

         III. ANALYSIS

         Petitioner's argument that he no longer possesses predicate offenses sufficient for categorization as an armed career criminal under § 924(e), enhancement as a career-offender under Section 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, or application of an enhanced base offense level under Section 2K2.1 of the same fails because the record conclusively demonstrates he was never subjected to these provisions [PSR ¶¶ 2, 13-14, 28, 34, 37, 40-42, 57-59].[1]

         To the extent Petitioner complains that he received criminal history points for prior convictions that were not violent in their nature, the Johnson decision is inapposite. Each prior conviction that resulted in criminal history points did so because it constituted a prior “sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month” under Section 4A1.1(a), prior “sentence of imprisonment of at least sixty days” under Section 4A1.1(b), or otherwise qualified under Section 4A1.1(c), not because it was a “crime of violence” under the ACCA residual clause.

         IV. CONCLUSION

         For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner's § 2255 motion [Doc. 1296] will be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court will CERTIFY any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. Therefore, this Court will DENY Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Petitioner having failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

         AN APPROPRIATE ...


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.