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.

Wilson v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division

September 29, 2017

JANALEE ANNETTE WILSON, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Crim. No. 00-10065-JDT

          ORDER TO MODIFY THE DOCKET, DENYING MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS.

          JAMES D. TODD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by the Movant, Janalee Annette Wilson, who is currently an inmate at the Women's Therapeutic Residential Center in Henning, Tennessee (West Tennessee State Penitentiary, Site 1).[1] For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Wilson's § 2255 motion.

         On November 20, 2000, a federal grand jury returned a twenty-count indictment against Wilson. Counts one through four each charged Wilson with mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; counts five through twelve charged separate violations of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and counts thirteen through nineteen each charged Wilson with money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Count twenty was a criminal forfeiture count pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982. (No. 00-10065-JDT, Crim. ECF No. 1.) The charges were brought in connection with Wilson's scheme to cause her husband's death and collect the proceeds from his life insurance policies.

         Beginning on September 10, 2001, the case was tried before a jury. (Id., Crim. ECF Nos. 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62 & 64.) On September 19, 2001, the Court granted judgment of acquittal as to count four of the indictment, and the jury returned a guilty verdict on counts one through three and five through nineteen. (Id., Crim. ECF Nos. 64, 69 & 70.) The jury also returned a special verdict finding that Wilson's property in the amount of $285, 586.37 was subject to forfeiture. (Id., Crim. ECF Nos. 64, 68 & 70.) At a hearing on December 14, 2001, the Court sentenced Wilson to a 210-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. (Id., Crim. ECF No. 74.) Judgment was entered on December 19, 2001. (Id., Crim. ECF No. 77.) The conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. United States v. Wilson, 345 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2003).

         On June 29, 2015, Wilson filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 1.) The Court issued an order on October 13, 2015, directing her to show cause why the motion should not be dismissed as untimely. (ECF No. 7.) On October 28, 2015, Wilson filed a motion to recuse the undersigned from this case (ECF No. 9), which was denied (ECF No. 10 at 1-3). Wilson also filed a response to the show cause order on October 28, 2015, in which she argues that she is “actually innocent” of the crimes of which she was convicted, resulting in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. (ECF No. 8.) Therefore, the Court directed the United States to respond (ECF No. 10 at 3), and an answer was filed on November 19, 2015 (ECF No. 11).

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(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.

         “A prisoner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must allege either (1) an error of constitutional magnitude; (2) a sentence imposed outside the statutory limits; or (3) an error of fact or law that was so fundamental as to render the entire proceeding invalid.” Short v. United States, 471 F.3d 686, 691 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         After a § 2255 motion is filed, it is reviewed by the Court and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion.” Rule 4(b), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings (“§ 2255 Rules”). “If the motion is not dismissed, the judge must order the United States attorney to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to take other action the judge may order.” Id. The movant is entitled to reply to the Government's response. Rule 5(d), § 2255 Rules.

         Wilson's § 2255 motion is facially time barred. Twenty-eight U.S.C. § 2255(f) provides:

(f) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively ...

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.