United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
PRESENT Honorable Gerald E. Rosen United States District
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING REMAINING CLAIMS ASSERTED
IN PETITIONER'S MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO
VACATE HIS SENTENCE
E. Rosen United States District Judge.
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).
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
(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
(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 ...