United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION TO VACATE SENTENCE UNDER 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF #48); (2) DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255
AS MOOT (ECF #46); AND (3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
December 17, 2015, Defendant Jared Lockwood
(“Lockwood”) was charged in a criminal complaint
with receipt, possession, and access with intent to view
child pornography. (See ECF #1.) On March 24, 2016,
pursuant to a Rule 11 plea agreement, Lockwood pleaded guilty
to one count of possession of child pornography in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(A)(5)(b). (See Rule 11 Plea
Agreement, ECF #19.) As part of that agreement, Lockwood
waived any right to appeal his conviction, and he waived any
right to appeal his sentence if the Court imposed a sentence
that did not exceed 108 months. (See Id. at
§§ 3, 9, Pg. ID 57, 62.) The Court imposed a
sentence of 108 months imprisonment. (See ECF #45 at
Pg. ID 635.) The Court entered its judgment on December 15,
2016. (See id.) Lockwood did not appeal.
January 5, 2018, Lockwood filed a motion for an extension of
time to file a motion to vacate his sentence. (See ECF
January 17, 2018, Lockwood filed a motion to vacate or set
aside the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
(See ECF #48.) He identifies the ground for his
motion as: “Why was I given extra time as punishment
for an unrelated case when that case already had a
consecutive enhancement?” (Id. at Pg. ID 656.)
In support, he argues the following:
On 12/13/2016 during sentencing in an unrelated case (No.
16-cr-20466-01) it is believed that the Judge stated on the
record to the Prosecutor, “Dont [sic] you think Mr.
Lockwood received a whole lot of extra time at last weeks
[sic] sentencing (16-cr-20008) because of todays [sic]
case.” No. 16-cr-20466-01 already had a mandatory
consecutive enhancement for the punishment in that crime.
reasons that follow, Lockwood's motion to vacate his
sentence is DENIED.
Lockwood has procedurally defaulted his claim because he did
not raise it on direct appeal. See Bousley v. United
States, 523 U.S. 614, 621 (1998). “Where a
defendant has procedurally defaulted a claim by failing to
raise it on direct review, the claim may be raised in habeas
only if the defendant can first demonstrate either
‘cause' and actual ‘prejudice, ' or that
he is ‘actually innocent.'” Id. at
622 (citations omitted). Lockwood has not demonstrated either
cause or actual prejudice or that he is innocent. Therefore,
his argument is procedurally defaulted.
(and in any event), Lockwood's claim fails on the merits.
He relies exclusively on a question purportedly asked by the
Court at sentencing. His argument, however, misunderstands the
Court's question. The Court directed the question to the
Government, and the purpose of the question was to challenge
the Government's arguments in favor of its requested
sentence in the other case (16-20466). The question thus
the question did not imply that the Court had considered
impermissible factors in imposing sentence in this case.
Instead, the question reflected the reality that
Lockwood's sentencing guidelines in this case were
increased based, in part, on the conduct underlying his
conviction in the other case (16-20466) because that conduct
occurred while he was free on bond and awaiting sentencing in
this case. Contrary to Lockwood's claim, he was not
unlawfully “given extra time [in this case] as
punishment for an unrelated case . . . .” Lockwood has
not shown any error in the sentence imposed.
Lockwood is not entitled to a certificate of appealability
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) because he has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Moreover, reasonable jurists could not debate the correctness
of the Court's denial of Lockwood's motion, and the
issues raised by Lockwood do not deserve encouragement to
proceed further. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 483-84 (2000) (setting forth standards for granting a
certificate of appealability).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Lockwood's motion for relief from sentence is
Lockwood is DENIED a certificate of