United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Cookeville Division
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR, Chief United States District Judge
before the Court are the Petitioner's pro se
Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside, Or
Correct Sentence (Doc. Nos. 1, 2); a Notice Of Intent To Rely
On Pro Se Pleading (Doc. No. 10), filed by counsel
for the Petitioner; and the Government's Response (Doc.
No. 13). For the reasons set forth herein, the
Petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To
Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence (Doc. Nos. 1, 2) is
DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.
Procedural and Factual Background
Petitioner pled guilty, before now-retired Judge William J.
Haynes, Jr., to Count Ten of the Indictment in his underlying
criminal case, which alleged that the Petitioner used,
carried, brandished, and discharged firearms during and in
relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). (Doc. Nos. 3, 304, 367, 403 in
Case No. 2:11cr00001). The “drug trafficking
crime” identified in Count Ten was conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, a
quantity of a mixture and substance containing a detectable
amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 846. (Id.) Through the
Plea Agreement, the parties agreed to a sentence of 300
months of imprisonment, and the Government agreed to dismiss
the remaining nine counts at sentencing. (Doc. No. 367, at 2,
6, in Case No. 2:11cr00001). At the subsequent sentencing
hearing, on July 13, 2012, Judge Haynes imposed the agreed
300-month sentence. (Doc. Nos. 361, 368, 369 in Case No.
2:11cr00001). The record reveals that no appeal was taken.
The Petitioner's Claims
Petitioner contends that his conviction and sentence should
be vacated because he received the ineffective assistance of
The Section 2255 Remedy
U.S.C. Section 2255 provides federal prisoners with a
statutory mechanism by which to seek to have their sentence
vacated, set aside or corrected:
(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 ...