United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case has been reassigned to the undersigned Judge.
before the Court are Petitioner's pro se Motion
To Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) (Doc. No. 1), filed on April 20,
2017; a Supplemental Brief (Doc. No. 13), filed by counsel
for Petitioner; the Government's Motion To Dismiss (Doc.
No. 17); and Petitioner's Reply To Motion To Dismiss
(Doc. No. 18).
reasons set forth below, Petitioner's request for relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. Nos. 1, 13) is
DENIED, the Government's Motion To
Dismiss (Doc. No. 17) is GRANTED, and this
action is DISMISSED.
Petitioner's Criminal Proceedings
underlying criminal case, Petitioner pled guilty, before
former Judge Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr., to three drug
trafficking charges. (Doc. Nos. 181, 213, 231 in No.
3:94cr90). At the subsequent sentencing hearing, on June 18,
1996, Judge Wiseman imposed a sentence of 30 years of
imprisonment. (Doc. Nos. 231, 232, 234, 235 in No. 3:94cr90).
The record indicates that no appeal was filed.
Section 2255 Proceedings
has brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Section 2255 provides a statutory mechanism for challenging
the imposition of a federal sentence:
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
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). In order to obtain relief under
Section 2255, a petitioner “‘must demonstrate the
existence of an error of constitutional magnitude which had a
substantial and injurious effect or influence on the guilty
plea or the jury's verdict.'” Humphress v.
United States, 398 F.3d 855, 858 (6th Cir. 2005)(quoting
Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733, 736 (6th
factual dispute arises in a § 2255 proceeding, the court
is to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the dispute.
Ray v. United States, 721 F.3d 758, 761 (6th Cir.
2013). An evidentiary hearing is not required, however, if
the record conclusively shows that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); Ray,
721 F.3d at 761; Arredondo v. United States, 178
F.3d 778, 782 (6th Cir. 1999). A hearing is also
unnecessary “if the petitioner's allegations
‘cannot be accepted as true because they are
contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or
conclusions rather than statements of fact.'”
reviewed the record in Petitioner's underlying criminal
case, as well as the filings in this case, the Court finds it
unnecessary to hold an evidentiary hearing because the
records conclusively ...