United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE, SET
ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE 
J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge.
Darrell Mattison, through counsel, filed a Motion to Vacate,
Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C §
2255  on June 22, 2016. The Government filed a Response
 on September 1, 2016. For the reasons stated below, the
Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence  is
and Procedural Background
August 20, 2013, Mattison pleaded guilty to Felon in
Possession of a Firearm (Count I) in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). The Rule 11 Plea Agreement  provided a
Sentencing Guidelines' range of 70-87 months, based in
part on an enhancement under the Guidelines' career
offender provisions, § 4B1.2(a), for a 1994 Armed
Robbery conviction. The Court held a Sentencing Hearing on
December 16, 2013. On December 30, 2013, the Court sentenced
Mattison to five years of imprisonment on Count I. Mattison
did not appeal his conviction.
22, 2016, Mattison filed the instant § 2255 Motion
seeking relief under Johnson v. United States, 135
S.Ct. 2551 (2015). On July 7, 2016, the Government filed a
Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Supreme Court's
Decision in Beckles v. United States . Mattison
filed a Response  to the Government's Motion to Stay
on July 21, 2016. On July 28, 2016, the Court denied the
Government's Motion to Stay. [Dkt. #28]. The Government
filed a Response  to Mattison's § 2255 Motion on
September 1, 2016.
was released from the custody of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons on November 8, 2017.
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)).
Motion , Mattison argues that he is entitled to
resentencing under Johnson because his 1994 Armed
Robbery conviction no longer qualifies as a “crime of
violence” under § 4B1.2(a). Mattison maintains
that his appropriate Guidelines' range is 46-57 months.
See [Dkt. #27].
Mattison's claim for relief is moot
petitioner who files a § 2255 motion must demonstrate
that he has standing to seek relief from the federal courts.
Pola v. United States, 778 F.3d 525, 529 (6th Cir.
2015). Once a petitioner's sentence has expired, some
concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended
incarceration or parole-a “collateral
consequence” of the conviction-must exist if the suit
is to be maintained and not considered moot. See Spencer
v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).
a habeas petitioner chooses to attack only his or her
sentence, and not the underlying conviction, and that
sentence expires during the course of the habeas proceeding,
the habeas petitioner's claim for relief is moot.”
Brock v. White, No. 2:09-CV-14005, 2011 WL 1565188,
at *2 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 25, 2011).
filed the instant Motion  on June 22, 2016. Because
Mattison has since been released from federal custody,
attacks only his sentence, and does not claim to be suffering
from a collateral consequence of his conviction, his claim
for relief is moot. See United States v. Perotti,
702 F. App'x 322, 325 (6th Cir. 2017) (rendering as moot
an appeal of the district court's order denying the
defendant's § 2255 petition where he was released
from federal custody); see also United States v.
Buchannan, No. 02-90030, 2008 WL 2008556, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. May 8, 2008) (“Because defendant challenges only
his sentence, and not his underlying conviction or supervised
release revocation, his release from that sentence renders
his motion moot.”).
Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017)