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.

Harris v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

September 5, 2019

RODERICK HARRIS, Movant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          ORDER

          SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Movant Roderick Harris' June 27, 2017 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Cv. ECF No. 1.) The United States of America responded on July 3, 2019. (Cv. ECF No. 6.) Harris has not replied, and the time to do so has passed.

         For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Harris' motion and DENIES a certificate of appealability. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

         I. Background

         In January 2014, Harris pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). (Cr. ECF No. 310.) The United States Probation Office deemed Harris a career offender under Section 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on four prior convictions: (1) sale of a controlled substance; (2) aggravated burglary; (3) possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell; and (4) especially aggravated robbery. (See generally Presentence Investigation Report.) On June 20, 2014, the Court sentenced Harris as a career offender to a term of 139 months in prison and three years' supervised release. (See Cr. ECF No. 438.) Harris did not appeal.

         Harris filed this § 2255 motion on June 27, 2017. He argues that under United States v. Johnson, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), he is not a career offender and that he is entitled to resentencing.

         II. Legal Standards

         Harris seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Under § 2255,

[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 . . . may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).

         “To succeed on a § 2255 motion, a prisoner in custody must show ‘(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.'” McPhearson v. United States, 675 F.3d 553, 558-59 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mallett v. United States, 334 F.3d 491, 496- 97 (6th Cir. 2003)).

         After a movant files a § 2255 motion, the court reviews it 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[.]” Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the U.S. District Courts (“§ 2255 Rules”) at Rule 4(b). “If the motion is not dismissed, the judge must order the United States attorney to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to take other action the judge may order.” Id. The § 2255 movant is entitled to reply to the government's response. Id. at Rule 5(d).

         III. Analysis

         Harris' motion is untimely. Generally, a § 2255 motion must be filed within a year of “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). The Court entered judgment on June 20, 2014. (Cr. ECF No. 438.) Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A)(i), Harris had fourteen days after the entry of the judgment, or until July 5, 2014, to file a notice of appeal. Because Harris failed to file a notice of appeal, the judgment became final on July 5, 2014. See Johnson v. United States,457 Fed.Appx. 462, 464-65 (6th Cir. 2012). Harris ...


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.