Corley v. United States
| Decision Date | 27 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:12cv2213,No. 3:08cr422,3:08cr422,3:12cv2213 |
| Parties | TROY BERNARD CORLEY, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Judge Munley)
Before the court is Petitioner Troy Bernard Corley's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as well as a motion for an evidentiary hearing. (Docs. 121, 124 in 3:08cr422).1 After careful consideration, the court finds that Petitioner Troy Bernard Corley is not entitled to relief, and both motions will be denied.
Petitioner Troy Bernard Corley (hereinafter "petitioner") was indicted on three criminal counts by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on November 18, 2008. (Doc. 4, Indictment). Count I accuses petitioner of engaging in a conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base ("crack") in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). Count II charges petitioner with distributing crack in violationof 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Count III alleges that petitioner possessed with the intent to distribute more than five grams of crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B).2
The facts that led to petitioner's indictment were uncovered by state and federal law enforcement agents during an investigation of drug trafficking activities in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania. During the course of this investigation, a cooperating witness (hereinafter "CW") furnished information regarding prior purchases of crack cocaine from petitioner. (Doc. 2, Aff. of FBI Agent Whitehead ¶ 8). On July 2, 2008, CW arranged to meet with petitioner, and, with law enforcement supervision, CW participated in a controlled purchase of crack cocaine from petitioner. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9). Investigators provided CW with $300 in pre-recorded currency and documented that CW used this to purchase 2.9 grams of a substance later confirmed to be crack cocaine. (Id. ¶ 9).
Investigators were aware of outstanding warrants issued with respect to petitioner, and, after the controlled purchase, law enforcement entered Brian McMicken's apartment in Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania, where CW indicated petitioner would be located, and arrested petitioner. (Id. ¶ 10). Petitioner was arrested with the $300 in pre-recorded currency in his possession. (Id.) At the time of the arrest, investigators also found 4.4 grams of crack cocaine in the room where petitioner was arrested. (Id. ¶ 11). McMicken told investigators that this bag of crack cocaine belonged to petitioner. (Id.)
On March 4, 2009, petitioner was arraigned and pled not guilty to the charges contained in the indictment. (Doc. 31, Not Guilty Plea). Also at the arraignment, the court appointed Attorney Thomas J. Nolan as petitioner's counsel and scheduled petitioner's trial for March 4, 2009. (Doc. 29, Order dated Mar. 4, 2009).
In anticipation of a pre-trial conference scheduled for June 23, 2009, Attorney Nolan filed a pre-trial memorandum in which he memorialized his request that the government refrain from alluding to petitioner's pending Luzerne County criminal case. (Doc. 57, Def.'s Pretrial Mem.). Attorney Nolan also requested that the government provide him with the physicalevidence it planned to present at trial as well as the names, criminal records and scope of testimony of the witnesses the government intended to call. (Id.) Immediately following the June 23, 2009 pre-trial conference, the court issued a rescheduling order moving the start of the trial from Monday July 13, 2009 to Friday July 10, 2009. (Doc. 61, Order dated June 23, 2009). Prior to the start of the trial, Attorney Nolan submitted requested jury instructions and voir dire questions on behalf of petitioner. .
After a three-day trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts on counts I, II and III of the indictment. (Doc. 70, Jury Verdict). With respect to count I of the indictment, the jury unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt that the quantity of crack cocaine petitioner conspired to distribute or possess with the intent to distribute was at least 50 grams. (Id.)
On September 8, 2009, the court received a letter dated August 20, 2009 in which petitioner requested a new, court-appointed attorney. (Doc. 90, Letter dated Aug. 20, 2009). In this letter, petitioner expressed his dissatisfaction with Attorney Nolan, especially with regard to Attorney Nolan's pre-trial practice. (Id.) Petitioner's letter concluded with a requestto replace Attorney Nolan and for a new trial, to which petitioner claimed he was entitled because there "is to [sic] much corruption going on around hear [sic] and to [sic] much racial discrimination as well and I need a fair trial." (Id.) The court held a hearing on September 14, 2009, at which time the court deemed petitioner's reasons for new counsel to be insufficient and denied petitioner's request.
On November 23, 2009, the court held a sentencing hearing. (Doc. 128, Tr. of Sentencing Hr'g). At the hearing, Attorney Nolan presented three objections to the pre-sentence report. First, Attorney Nolan objected to an offense level enhancement on the basis that the petitioner did not possess with the intent to distribute at least one kilogram of crack cocaine. (Id. at 18). The court overruled this objection and found that an offense level enhancement was warranted because the trial witnesses were able to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that petitioner possessed with the intent to distribute at least one kilogram of crack cocaine. (Id.) Second, Attorney Nolan objected to the imposition of a dangerous weapon sentencing enhancement. (Id. at 19-20). The court similarly overruled Attorney Nolan's second objection and found that a sentencing enhancement was warranted because the witnesses established by a preponderance of the evidence that petitioner possessed dangerousweapons in connection with his drug trafficking activity. (Id.) Third, Attorney Nolan objected to sentencing enhancement for any leadership role petitioner held in the drug conspiracy. (Id. at 21). The court sustained Attorney Nolan's third objection that the government failed to establish that petitioner held a leadership role in the drug conspiracy for which he was convicted. (Id.) As such, the petitioner's offense level was lowered to 36. (Id.) The applicable guidelines range for this offense level was 188 to 235 months. (Id.) The court sentenced petitioner to a 188-month term of imprisonment, five years of supervised release and the court imposed a fine of $600. (Doc. 102, Judgment).
Petitioner filed notice of appeal on December 1, 2009. (Doc. 103, Notice of Appeal). On appeal, Attorney Nolan filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he argued that he was unable to identify any non-frivolous grounds for review. United States v. Corley, 455 F. App'x 178, 179 (3d Cir. 2011). Petitioner exercised his right to file a pro se brief and raised two issues for direct appeal: (1) whether the court violated his rights when it did not submit the exact drug quantities to the jury but rather determined the issue at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence standard; and (2) whether the court used itspreponderance of the evidence finding regarding the increased drug quantity to elevate petitioner's guidelines range and sentence beyond the statutory maximum. Id.
On December 27, 2011, the Third Circuit granted Attorney Nolan's motion to withdraw and denied petitioner's appeal. Id. at 180-81. The circuit court explained that petitioner's claims lacked merit and failed to amount to a violation of the Supreme Court's holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) because the trial court's drug quantity determination did not enhance the statutory maximum. Id.
Motion to Reduce Sentence Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
On February 1, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion to reduce his sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act amendments, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Doc. 112, Mot. to Reduce Sentence). The government opposed petitioner's motion on the grounds that petitioner's guidelines range do not change under the Fair Sentencing Act amendments. (Doc. 115, Br. in Opp'n). The court denied petitioner's motion on September 6, 2012. (Doc. 117, Order dated Sept. 6, 2012). Petitioner has appealed the court's decision denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to render a decision. (Doc. 118, Notice of Appeal).
Petitioner filed the instant motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to § 2255 on November 5, 2012. (Doc. 124, Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by A Person in Federal Custody). Also on November 5, 2012, petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing in which he requests the opportunity to develope the facts surrounding his claims. (Doc. 121, Mot. for Evidentiary Hr'g).
On January 22, 2013, the government filed a brief in opposition to petitioner's § 2255 motion. (Doc. 134, Br. in Opp'n). Petitioner filed an amendment to his § 2255 motion on January 29, 2013, (Doc. 135, Am. to Habeas Corpus Pet.), and on February 20, 2013, petitioner filed a reply brief in further support of his § 2255 motion, . On April 9, 2013, the court granted petitioner's request for the transcripts of the opening statements and closing argument of his trial, the court sent petitioner these transcripts, and petitioner was granted fourteen days in which to file supplemental...
To continue reading
Request your trial