United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee
A. VARLAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
inmate Jonas Greenman has filed a motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
and a motion to file an addendum. Respondent has filed a
response in opposition to both the original petition and the
addendum. Having considered the pleadings and the record,
along with the relevant law, the Court finds that there is no
necessity for an evidentiary hearing, and Greenman's §
2255 motion and motion for addendum will be denied.
BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
ten-day period in late 2009, Greenman robbed four Knoxville
businesses at gunpoint: a Quiznos restaurant on November 23,
2009; a Days Inn hotel on November 30, 2009; an Advance Auto
Parts store on December 1, 2009; and a P.F. Chang's
restaurant on December 2, 2009 [Doc. 11 at ¶ 5 in No.
3:09-CR-164]. Greenman was subsequently indicted with four
counts of Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1951, and four corresponding counts of using, carrying, and
brandishing a firearm during an in relation to a crime of
violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) [Doc. 1 in
the assistance of counsel, Greenman negotiated a plea
agreement whereby he agreed to plead guilty to two of the
§ 924(c) offenses in exchange for dismissal of the
remaining counts [Doc. 11 in No. 3:09-CR-164]. Greenman's
plea was accepted, and the Court entered judgment in this
cause on January 26, 2011, sentencing Greenman to the lowest
sentence authorized by law for his offenses of conviction: 84
months' imprisonment for his first § 924(c) offense,
followed by 300 months' imprisonment for the second [Doc.
17 in No. 3:09-CR-164]. Greenman did not appeal.
about June 24, 2016, Greenman filed the instant motion
challenging his § 924(c) convictions in light of the
holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551
(2015), which struck down as unconstitutional the residual
clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”)
[Doc. 1]. Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2563. On or about
February 6, 2019, Greenman filed a “Motion for
Addendum” to his petition seeking to add additional
claims [Doc. 5]. The United States was ordered to respond to
Greenman's allegations, and it filed a response on April
10, 2019 [Doc. 9].
defendant has been convicted and exhausted his appeal rights,
a court may presume that “he stands fairly and finally
convicted.” United States v. Frady, 456 U.S.
152, 164 (1982). A court may grant relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, but the statute “does not encompass all
claimed errors in conviction and sentencing.”
United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185
(1979). Rather, collateral attack limits a movant's
allegations to those of constitutional or jurisdictional
magnitude, or those containing factual or legal errors
“so fundamental as to render the entire proceeding
invalid.” Short v. United States, 471 F.3d
686, 691 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
one-year limitation period applies to § 2255 motions,
and it runs from the latest of:
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
(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
(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