United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division
ORDER 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
D. TODD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed
by the Movant, Reginald Ragland. For the reasons stated
below, the Court DENIES Ragland's § 2255 motion.
April 21, 2003, a federal grand jury returned a one-count
indictment charging Ragland with possession of
"crack" cocaine with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). (No. 03-10018, Crim.
ECF No. 1.) Trial began on December 15, 2003, and on December
17, 2003, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
(Id., Crim. ECF Nos. 40, 42 & 46.) At a hearing
on March 24, 2004, the Court sentenced Ragland to a 300-month
term of imprisonment, to be followed by four years of
supervised release. (Id., Crim. ECF No. 53.)
Judgment was entered on March 25, 2004. (Id., Crim.
ECF No. 54.) On appeal, the Sixth Circuit vacated the
sentence and remanded for re-sentencing under United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). (Id.,
Crim. ECF No. 65, United States v. Ragland, No.
04-5383 (6th Cir. July 12, 2005).)
re-sentencing hearing on October 12, 2005, the Court
determined that Ragland qualified as a career offender under
§ 4B1.1 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The Court
then departed upward from the advisory guideline range and
sentenced Ragland to the statutory maximum of 480 months in
prison, to be followed by four years of supervised release.
(Id., Crim. ECF No. 74.) The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
United States v. Ragland, 226 Fed.Appx. 507 (6th
Cir. 2007), cert, denied, 552 U.S. 1102(2008).
3, 2016, Ragland sought leave in the Sixth Circuit to file a
second or successive § 2255 motion, which the Court of
Appeals denied as unnecessary because Ragland had not filed
any previous § 2255 motions. (ECF No. 1, In re
Ragland, No. 16-5766 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 2016).) The
§ 2255 motion was then docketed in this Court.
§ 2255 motion and supplemental memorandum raise the
1. Whether his conviction was obtained by evidence seized
pursuant to a warrantless search and arrest that were invalid
under the Fourth Amendment;
2. Whether the quantity of drugs attributed to him and the
application of a 2-level offense increase for obstruction of
justice violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial;
3. Whether the Court's upward departure from the
applicable guideline range was constitutionally permissible;
4. Whether his sentence is constitutionally invalid under the
decisions in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct.
2551 (2015), and Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct.
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
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).
§ 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, ...