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.

Moore v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville

November 1, 2019

GREGORY HAROLD MOORE, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          LEON JORDAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Petitioner Gregory Harold Moore's pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the United States' response in opposition to the motion [Docs. 1 and 3].[1] Petitioner did not reply to the response and the time for doing so has now passed. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1, 7.2. In its response, the United States asserts that Petitioner is not entitled to relief because his claims have no merit.

         The Court finds the materials submitted, together with the record of the underlying criminal case conclusively show that Petitioner is not entitled to relief on the claims asserted in his motion. Accordingly, the Court will decide this matter without an evidentiary hearing. See Campbell v. United States, 686 F.3d 353, 357 (6th Cir. 2012). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will find that Petitioner's motion to vacate lacks merit and, thus, will DENY and DISMISS his § 2255 motion WITH PREJUDICE.

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On August 25, 2015, a federal grand jury issued a 10-count indictment charging Petitioner with offenses involving drug-trafficking conspiracies, distribution of controlled substances, and possession of firearms [Docs. 1, 8, No. 2:15-CR-96]. A superseding indictment added four co-defendants to the case and 9 additional counts against Petitioner [Doc. 26 (sealed), No. 2:15-CR-96]

         On February 5, 2016, Petitioner entered into a plea agreement with the government, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(A) [Doc. 72, Case. No. 2:15-CR-96]. Petitioner agreed to plead guilty to six counts alleged in the superseding indictment, to wit, conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846 (Count 1); conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute a quantity of hydrocodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846 (Count 2); conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute a quantity of oxymorphone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846 (Count 3); conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute a quantity of oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846 (Count 4); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 10), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count 14); and conspiracy to threaten and attempt to engage in conduct which would cause bodily injury with intent to retaliate against a person for information believed to have been given to a law enforcement officer related to the commission and possible commission of a federal offense, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b)(2) (Count 19) [Id. at ¶¶ 1(a)-(f)]. The remaining counts were to be dismissed at sentencing [Id. at 2].

         On February 16, 2016, eleven days after entry of the plea agreement, Petitioner pled guilty to Counts 1-4, 14 and 19 as charged in the superseding indictment [Doc. 80, Minute Entry, Case. No. 2:15-CR-96]. Thereafter, the United States Probation Office issued a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) [Doc. 96 (sealed), No. 2:15-CR-96].

         The probation officer who prepared the PSR grouped together Counts 1-4 and 19 and determined Petitioner's base offense level to be 32 based on the 6261.6 kilograms of marijuana equivalent (derived from stipulations in his plea agreement [Doc. 72 at ¶4(t)]) involved his § 841(a)(1) offenses, [Doc. 96 at ¶¶ 35-37]. Two points were added for using violence, making a credible threat to use violence, or directing the use of violence, see USSG § 2D1.1(b)(2), another two points were added for maintaining a premise for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance, see USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12), a further three points were added for his role in the offense as a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) of criminal activity involving five or more participants or an otherwise extensive criminal operation, see USSG § 3B1.1(b), and an additional two points for obstruction of justice, see USSG § 3C1.1, yielded an adjusted offense level of 41 [Id. at ¶¶ 38-39, 41-43]. A three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility lowered Petitioner's total offense level to 38 [Id. at ¶¶ 44-46]. Petitioner had six criminal history points for a criminal history category of III [Id. at ¶60]. With an offense level of 38 and a criminal history category of III, Petitioner's guidelines range was 292 to 365 months. However, because Count 14, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, required a guideline sentence to be the statutory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment, consecutive to any other term of imprisonment, see USSG § 2K2.4, Petitioner's effective guidelines range was 352 months to 425 months [Id. at ¶ 47-48, 84].

         Petitioner objected to three sentencing enhancements in the PSR [Doc. 122, No. 2:15-CR-96]. The Court overruled his objections [Docs. 122, 127, No. 2:15-CR-96] and sentenced him to a net 360-months' imprisonment, consisting of a concurrent 240 months as to each of Counts 2-4 and 19 and 60 months on Count 14, to be served consecutively [Docs. 122, 155, No. 2:15-CR-96]. Petitioner's sentence of incarceration was to be followed by a net term of five years of supervised release [Id.]. All other counts in the superseding indictment were dismissed on the government's motion [Id.]. Judgment entered on August 24, 2016 [Doc. 158, Judgment, No. 2:15-CR-96].

         Petitioner filed a notice of appeal [Doc. 163, No. 2:15-CR-96]. After granting trial counsel's motion to withdraw from the representation, the Sixth Circuit appointed counsel to represent Petitioner in the appeal [Docs. 165-175, No. 2:15-CR-96]. On January 1, 2017, the appeal was dismissed on Petitioner's motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal [Doc. 197, No. 2:15-CR-96]. Eight months later, on August 18, 2017, Petitioner timely filed this motion to vacate under § 2255, alleging several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel [Doc. 1].

         II. FACTS

         The Court summarizes the facts from those to which Petitioner stipulated, as contained in the factual basis in the plea agreement [Doc. 72, No. 2:15-CR-96]. From January, 2015 through October 2015, Petitioner conspired to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine (actual) and quantities of hydrocodone, oxymorphone and oxycodone [Doc. 72 at ¶4(a), No. 2:15-CR-96]. The conspiracy was investigated by law enforcement officers who used confidential informants to purchase narcotics in a series of controlled transactions that were recorded from May 18, 2015, to August 14, 2015 [Id. at ¶ 4(b)-(g)].

         On August 18, 2015, officers executed a federal search warrant on Petitioner's residence and found $24, 276 in cash and approximately 48 firearms [Id. at 4(h)-(i)]. Petitioner was arrested and taken to jail [Id. at ¶4(j)]. While in jail, Petitioner made several recorded calls during which he threatened to harm co-conspirators who cooperated with law enforcement officials [Id. at 4(1), (p)]. In another recorded call, Petitioner revealed to his wife that various drugs he had hidden in a weight bench in his residence had been missed by officers who executed the search warrant and instructed her to give the drugs to two co-conspirators [Id. at ¶ 4(j)]. Petitioner was told that the hidden drugs were recovered by officer who revisited the residence [Id. at ¶ 4(q)].

         III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

         A. ...


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.