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.

Greenman v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee

June 21, 2019

JONAS KIM GREENMAN, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          THOMAS A. VARLAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Federal 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[1], and Greenman's § 2255 motion and motion for addendum will be denied.

         I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Over a 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 No. 3:09-CR-164].

         With 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.

         On or 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].

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         After a 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).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Timeliness

         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 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.