United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION & ORDER DENYING MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C.
F. Cox United States District Judge
matter is currently before the Court on Defendant/Petitioner
Robert Lewis Young's pro se motion to vacate,
set aside, or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. The Government has responded in opposition to
the motion. Petitioner did not file a reply brief and the
time permitted for doing so has passed. The motion is now
ripe for a decision by the Court. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court shall DENY the motion.
Criminal Case Number 05-90030, Petitioner was charged in a
multiple-count indictment with various child exploitation,
child prostitution, drug, firearm, and money laundering
offenses. That criminal case was assigned to the Honorable
Lawrence P. Zatkoff.
pleaded guilty to Counts 1 through 10, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22,
24, 25 and 27 of the Indictment, which included: Sex
Trafficking of Children, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1591(a); Sex Trafficking by Force, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1591(a); Transportation of a Minor for Criminal Sexual
Activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2423(a) & (e);
Transportation for Prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2421; Sexual Exploitation of Children, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); Interstate Distribution of Child
Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1);
Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); Felon in Possession of a
Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and Use
of Interstate Facility in Aid of Racketeering, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(g).
Zatkoff originally sentenced Petitioner on March 15, 2007,
sentencing him to 300 months of imprisonment. (See
D.E. No. 50, 3/20/07 Judgment).
not appear that Petitioner filed a direct appeal.
October 6, 2009, the Government filed a Motion for Reduction
of Sentence Pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. (D.E. No. 60).
October 22, 2009, Judge Zatkoff issued an Amended Judgment,
reducing Petitioner's sentence to 282 months of
imprisonment. (D.E. No. 62).
than five years later, on July 1, 2016, Petitioner filed
a pro se Motion to Vacate Sentence, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket Entry No. 64). The action was
reassigned to the undersigned on July 8, 2016.
motion purports to set forth four claims, but does so in an
extremely cursory fashion (ie., stating each claim, and
“the supporting facts for the claim, ” in one or
two sentences total). Petitioner did not file a supporting
brief, nor did he file a reply brief in support of his
motion, although the Court gave him the opportunity to do so.
Government filed a brief in opposition to the motion on
September 23, 2016. The Government construes Petitioner's
motion as asserting that Petitioner is somehow entitled to
relief under the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson
v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), wherein the
Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career
Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague. The Government
opposes the motion and asks that the Court deny it.
threshold matter, it appears that Petitioner's §
2255 motion, ...