United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville 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), the Government's Response (Doc.
No. 13), the Petitioner's Reply (Doc. No. 16), the
Petitioner's Supplemental Brief Regarding Application Of
Stitt v. United States (Doc. No. 18), and the
Government's Response To Supplemental Brief (Doc. No.
20). For the reasons set forth herein, the Petitioner's
Motion To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence In
Accordance With 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 1) is
GRANTED. The Petitioner will be re-sentenced by separate
order in Criminal Case No. 3:03-cr-00106.
pending before the Court is the Government's Motion For
Extension Of Time To File Response Late (Doc. No. 19). The
Motion For Extension (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED.
Procedural and Factual Background
underlying criminal case, the Petitioner pled guilty, before
now-retired Judge John T. Nixon, to possession of counterfeit
currency and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon. (Doc. Nos. 67, 68 in Case No. 3:03cr00106). Through
the Plea Agreement, the Petitioner acknowledged that he had
three or more prior convictions for violent offenses and that
he was subject to sentencing as an Armed Career Criminal.
(Doc. No. 68, at 8, in Case No. 3:03cr00106).
subsequent sentencing hearing, on August 11, 2005, Judge
Nixon sentenced the Petitioner to 188 months of imprisonment.
(Doc. Nos. 72, 73, 74 in Case No. 3:03cr00106). The record
reveals that no appeal was filed.
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.
28 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