United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee
JOE S. BLEVINS, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
L. COLLIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
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].
years later-on June 17, 2016-Petitioner submitted the instant
motion seeking collateral relief in light of the
Johnson decision [Doc. 1296].
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
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,
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
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.