Bullock v. United States, 1:12-00138

• Decision Date: 20 February 2013
• Docket Number: No. 1:12-00138,1:12-00138
• Parties: PATRICK BULLOCK v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

PATRICK BULLOCK
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

No. 1:12-00138

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE COLUMBIA DIVISION

February 20, 2013

JUDGE CAMPBELL
MEMORANDUM
I. Introduction

Pending before the Court is a Motion Under § 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence and accompanying brief (Docket Nos. 1, 2), filed by the Movant/Petitioner (hereinafter "Petitioner"), pro se. The Government has filed a Response (Docket No. 9) to the Motion, and the Petitioner has filed a reply brief (Docket No. 14).

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court concludes that Petitioner's Motion To Vacate is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.

II. Procedural and Factual Background

In the underlying criminal case, the Petitioner was charged, along with four other Defendants, with engaging in a conspiracy to commit human trafficking. (Indictment (Docket No. 47 in Case No. 1:10-00013)). Prior to trial, the Petitioner pled guilty pursuant to a Plea Agreement based, in part, on Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in which the parties agreed to a sentence of 63 months of imprisonment. (Docket Nos. 98, 99, 164 in Case No. 1:10-00013). At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the Court sentenced the Petitioner to 63 months, and imposed an agreed restitution amount of $5,000. (Docket Nos. 119, 121, 122, 165 in Case No. 1:10-00013). The record indicates that no appeal was taken from the conviction or sentence.

Page 2

III. Analysis

A. The Petitioner's Claims

Petitioner contends that his conviction should be vacated because his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered given the parties' mutual mistake regarding his criminal history and sentencing guideline range.

B. The Section 2255 Remedy

Section 2255 provides federal prisoners with a statutory mechanism by which to seek to have their sentence vacated, set aside or corrected.¹ The statute does not provide a remedy, however, for every error that may have been made in the proceedings leading to conviction. "'To warrant relief under section 2255, a petitioner must demonstrate the existence of an error of constitutional magnitude which had 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)(quoting Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733, 736 (6th Cir. 2003)).

An evidentiary hearing is not required if the record conclusively shows that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); Amr v. United States, 280 F. App'x 480, 485, 2008 WL 2246367 (6th Cir. June 2, 2008); Arredondo v. United States, 178 F.3d 778, 782 (6th Cir.

Page 3

1999). No hearing is required "if the petitioner's allegations 'cannot be accepted as true because they are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or conclusions rather than statements of fact.'" Id. (quoting Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 240 (8th Cir. 1995)). Where the same judge considering the Section 2255 motion also presided over the underlying criminal proceedings, the judge may rely on his own recollection of those proceedings. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629 n.4, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977); Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227, 235 (6th Cir. 1996).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings, briefs, transcripts, and records filed in Petitioner's underlying criminal case, as well as the pleadings, briefs, transcripts, and records filed by the parties in this case. The Court finds it unnecessary to hold an evidentiary hearing because these records conclusively establish that Petitioner is not entitled to relief on the issues raised.

C. Mutual mistake regarding guilty plea

Petitioner argues that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because the parties proceeded under a mutual mistake regarding his criminal history and sentencing guideline range. Relying on Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2577, 177 L. Ed. 2d 68 (2010) and United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011), Petitioner contends that his sentence is based on an erroneous calculation of his criminal history score. According to the...