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.

United States v. Foster

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

March 29, 2017

United States of America, Plaintiff/Respondent,
v.
D-5 Adriane Foster, Defendant/Petitioner. Criminal No. 12-20218

          OPINION & ORDER DENYING § 2255 MOTION AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          Hon. Sean F. Cox, Judge

         In Criminal Case Number 12-20218, Petitioner Adriane Foster (“Petitioner”) pleaded guilty, pursuant to a Rule 11 Plea Agreement, to two counts of Robbery Affecting Interstate Commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1915, and two counts of Using or Carrying a Firearm During and in Relation to a Federal Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Doc. # 96, Rule 11 Plea Agreement). This Court sentenced Petitioner to a total term of 240 months.

         The matter is now before the Court on Petitioner's pro se Motion to Vacate Sentence, (Doc. # 399, Pet. Br.), brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner's request for relief is based upon the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2251 (2015), which held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) was unconstitutionally vague. The Government has filed a response opposing Petitioner's motion, (Doc. #55, Gov. Resp.). Petitioner has filed a reply to the Government's response. (Doc. # 416, Pet. Reply).

         Because the files and records of the case conclusively establish that Petitioner is not entitled to relief as to any of the claims set forth in this § 2255 motion, an evidentiary hearing is not necessary and the decision is therefore ready for a decision by this Court. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's motion to vacate will be DENIED. Moreover, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

         BACKGROUND

         On April 18, 2013, Petitioner pleaded guilty “to Counts Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten of the Second Superseding Indictment which charge two counts each of Robbery Affecting Interstate Commerce and Using or Carrying a Firearm During and in Relation to a Federal Crime of Violence.” (Rule 11 Plea Agreement at ¶ 1A).

         On February 19, 2014, this Court sentenced Petitioner to 40 months on each, Counts 7 and 9, to run concurrent to each other, to 80 months on Count 8, to run consecutive to all other Counts, and to 120 months on Count 10, to run consecutive to all other counts, for a total term of 240 months of imprisonment. (Doc. # 282). Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.

         On August 16, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate Sentence, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. # 399). Petitioner seeks to have his convictions vacated in light of Johnson. The Government has filed a response in opposition (Doc. # 408) and Petitioner has filed a reply. (Doc. # 416).

         STANDARD

         Petitioner's motion is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which provides:

A prisoner in custody under a sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence imposed was in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). To prevail on a § 2255 motion, “a petitioner must demonstrate the existence of an error of constitutional magnitude which has a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the guilty plea or the jury's verdict.” Humphress v. United States, 398 F.3d 855, 858 (6th Cir. 2005). A movant can prevail on a § 2255 motion alleging non-constitutional error only by establishing a “fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice, or an error so egregious that it amounts to a violation of due process.” Watson v. United States, 165 F.3d 486, 488 (6th Cir. 1999).

         The Court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227, 235 (6th Cir. 1996) (“evidentiary hearings are not required when . . . the record conclusively shows that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.”). Because the files and records of the case conclusively show that Petitioner is not entitled to relief as to any of the claims in this § 2255 motion, an evidentiary hearing is not necessary and the matter is ripe for a decision by this Court.

         ANALYSIS

         The Government opposes Petitioner's motion on two alternative grounds: (1) the motion is untimely; and (2) even if timely, Johnson's holding does not extend to ยง 924(c) convictions. The Court agrees that Petitioner's motion is time-barred by the AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations. Moreover, even if timely, Petitioner's motion fails on the ...


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.