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.

Black v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

January 31, 2017

ROSSAHN BLACK, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Civil No. 15-11372

          PRESENT Honorable Gerald E. Rosen United States District Judge.

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING REMAINING CLAIMS ASSERTED IN PETITIONER'S MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE HIS SENTENCE

          Gerald E. Rosen United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Following an eight-day trial in May and June of 2012, a jury found Petitioner Rossahn Black guilty of three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e), and this Court sentenced him to 300 months of imprisonment. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction on direct appeal, see United States v. Black, 739 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. 2014), and the Supreme Court denied Defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari in an order entered on May 19, 2014, see Black v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 2326 (2014).

         Through the present pro se motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and filed on April 14, 2015, Petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence on twelve grounds, although these issues overlap to a certain extent:

(1) that the Court erred in admitting the testimony of psychiatrist Ron Nieberding, and in relying on Dr. Nieberding's report and testimony to determine that Petitioner was competent to stand trial (claims 1, 2, and 3);
(2) that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to Dr. Nieberding's testimony, and that appellate counsel likewise was ineffective in failing to challenge this testimony on direct appeal (claim 4);
(3) that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request another competency hearing prior to Petitioner's sentencing, and that appellate counsel likewise was ineffective in not pursuing this issue on appeal (claim 5);
(4) that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce certain mitigating evidence at sentencing (claim 6);
(5) that counsel for the Government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct at Petitioner's trial, and that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to object to this misconduct or pursue this issue on appeal (claim 7);
(6) that Petitioner was improperly sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and that his sentencing and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to object to this sentencing error or pursue this matter on appeal (claim 8);
(7) that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain Petitioner's felon-in-possession convictions (claims 9 and 10);
(8) that Petitioner's Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy was violated through his trial and conviction in this case for conduct that was the subject of a prior state court conviction (claim 11); and
(9) that Petitioner's trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in the various respects identified in ...

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.