United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
J. TARNOW, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Denying Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence ; and Denying Movant a Certificate of
11, 2016, Movant Edward Cory Reardon pled guilty to one count
of coercion and enticement of a minor, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2422(b), and one count of production of child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) [Dkt.
27]. On January 30, 2017, the Court sentenced Movant to 15
years' (180 months) of imprisonment.
filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence 
on August 8, 2017. On order of the Court, the Government
filed a Response  on September 25, 2017. Movant filed a
Reply  on October 18, 2017.
reasons stated below, Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence  is DENIED.
Movant is DENIED a certificate of
September 2013, the Government issued a criminal complaint
charging Movant with various child pornography-related
activities. In addition, in October 2013, Movant was charged
in Macomb County with sexually abusive activity against a
child, in violation of M.C.L. § 750.145C2, and using
computers to commit a crime, in violation of M.C.L. §
750.145D2F. The Government's motion to dismiss the
federal criminal complaint without prejudice was granted in
January 8, 2014, the Macomb County Circuit Court sentenced
Movant to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 6-20
further investigation by law enforcement, the Government
issued an indictment  against Movant on March 10, 2015.
Movant remained in the custody of the Michigan Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”) during the pendency of this
case, from March 10, 2015 through February 15, 2017.
pled guilty on July 11, 2016. The Court sentenced Movant to
15 years' imprisonment . That sentence runs
concurrent to the MDOC sentence that Movant was already
succeed on a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence, a movant must allege “(1) an error of
constitutional magnitude; (2) a sentence imposed outside the
statutory limits; or (3) an error of fact or law that was so
fundamental as to render the entire proceeding
invalid.” Pough v. United States, 442 F.3d
959, 964 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mallett v. United
States, 334 F.3d 491, 496-97 (6th Cir. 2003)). Movant
alleges a violation of his constitutional right to the
effective assistance of counsel. To establish ineffective
assistance of counsel, Movant must show that his counsel
rendered deficient performance and thereby prejudiced
Movant's defense so as to render the outcome of the
proceedings unreliable. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
faults his counsel for failing to obtain credit for the time
Movant served between September 2013 and January 2017. This
does not meet the Strickland standard. Movant fails
to recognize that his counsel could not have rendered
deficient performance because, among other reasons, the Court
was statutorily bound to impose a 15-year sentence.
See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e). Although there are
certain situations in ...