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. Mattison

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

February 5, 2018

United States of America Plaintiff,
v.
Darrell Mattison, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE [23]

          Arthur J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge.

         Defendant Darrell Mattison, through counsel, filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2255 [23] on June 22, 2016. The Government filed a Response [29] on September 1, 2016. For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence [23] is DENIED.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         On 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 [16] 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.

         On June 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 [26]. Mattison filed a Response [27] 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 [29] to Mattison's § 2255 Motion on September 1, 2016.

         Mattison was released from the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons on November 8, 2017.

         Analysis

         To 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)).

         In his Motion [23], 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].

         I. Mattison's claim for relief is moot

         A 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).

         “Where 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).

         Mattison filed the instant Motion [23] 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.”).

         II. Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017) precludes ...


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.