Hallman v. United States
| Decision Date | 29 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | Cr. No. 3:05-376 |
| Parties | Nathaniel Hallman, Movant, v. United States of America, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Movant Nathaniel Hallman seeks to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
On December 19, 2011, May 11, 2012, and August 17, 2012, prior to filing his § 2255 motion, Movant filed three motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.1 ECF Nos. 171, 172, & 173. On December 10, 2012, the court issued an order indicating that it would consider the three motions as a motion to vacate under § 2255, and directing the Clerk of Court to provide Movant with the appropriate form to present his claims. ECF No. 174. Movant properly filed his § 2255 motion on January 14, 2013. ECF No. 178. On January 23, 2013, the Government filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 182. On the same day, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court issued an order advising Movant of the motion for summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. ECF No. 183. On February 13, 2013, Movant filed a response. ECF No. 185. Movant has also filed a motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 186; motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 187; and two motions to amend his § 2255 motion, ECF Nos. 188 &189. Movant's two motions to amend are granted, and the arguments contained in those motions will be considered in the court's review of his motion to vacate.
On April 6, 2005, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment charging Movant with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (Count One), and possession with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (Count Two). ECF No. 1. On the same day, United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant issued a warrant for Movant's arrest, ECF No. 3, and on April 20, 2005, Movant was arrested. ECF No. 11 at 2. On September 7, 2005, Movant was released on a secured bond and placed on pretrial supervision, a condition of which was that he not commit any offense in violation of federal, state, or local law while on release. ECF No. 35. On April 6, 2006, officers with the Richland County Sheriff's Department in South Carolina arrested and charged Movant with trafficking ten grams or more of cocaine. ECF No. 55. Movant was released on a secured bond. Id. The Government sought a warrant for Movant's arrest and revocation of his pretrial supervision. Id. On April 14, 2006, United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey issued a warrant for Movant's arrest. ECF No. 57. Movant was arrested on April 19, 2006. On the same day, Judge McCrorey revoked Movant's pretrial supervision. ECF No. 58. On August 2, 2006, a federal grand jury returned a three-count superseding indictment that, in addition to the two counts charged in the original indictment, charged intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (Count Three). ECF No. 77.
On October 2, 2006, the court held a plea hearing in accordance with Rule 11 of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ECF No. 94. At the hearing, Movant pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to Counts One and Three of the superseding indictment. ECF Nos. 93 & 94. In paragraph eleven of the plea agreement, the Government and Movant stipulated that Movant had one prior felony drug conviction and that the Government had provided Movant with notice of that conviction in an information filed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851. ECF No. 93 at 7. Further, the Government and Movant agreed that such a conviction would subject him to a ten-year statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Id. The Government agreed in paragraph twelve that at sentencing it would withdraw the § 851 enhancement in exchange for Movant's cooperation, which would reduce the statutory mandatory minimum sentence on Count Three to five years. Id. at 8. The Government agreed in paragraph sixteen that, if the court reduced Movant's offense level by two levels under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), for acceptance of responsibility, the Government would move pursuant to § 3E1.1(b), for an additional one-level decrease. Id. at 10.
During the Rule 11 plea colloquy, after the court found Movant competent to plead guilty, Movant affirmed he was aware that he would be waiving certain constitutional rights that he was entitled to as a criminal defendant, ECF No. 128 at 31-32; that he was satisfied with his representation in the matter, id. at 15-21; that the Government's summary of the plea agreement was correct, id. at 41; that no one had made any additional promises to him in exchange for pleading guilty, id. at 42-43; that no one had threatened him or used force against him to procure his guilty plea, id. at 43; that he understood by pleading guilty he waived any defenses he might have to thecharges, id.; and that he had been provided sufficient time to consider his decision to plead guilty, id. at 44. Thereafter, the Government provided the court with a summary of its evidence.
As to Count One, according to the Government's summary, on September 19, 2003, Officer Ed Hines with the Elgin Police Department in Elgin, South Carolina observed a vehicle-"an older model Lincoln"- operating with defective taillights. Id. at 44. Officer Hines attempted to have the vehicle pull over to the side of the road. Id. The vehicle accelerated and then slowed down but failed to pull over. Id. Eventually, the vehicle pulled into a private driveway after leaving the Elgin town limits. Id. As soon as the vehicle stopped, two men exited through the passenger's side door. Id. Officer Hines spoke with both men, one of whom was later identified as Movant. Id. at 44-45. Officer Hines asked Movant why he did not stop sooner. Id. Movant indicated that he did not notice the officer's lights or siren. Id. Movant subsequently changed his story, explaining instead that he was looking for a safe place to stop. Id. Officer Hines' report of the incident indicates that he observed Movant driving the vehicle. Id. After speaking with Movant, "Officer Hines approached the driver's side door to determine why [Movant] exited through the passenger's side door." Id. Officer Hines opened the door and noticed a loaded .22 caliber pistol located on the driver's side of the vehicle. Id. Officer Hines placed Movant under arrest. Id. A subsequent criminal record check revealed Movant had multiple convictions with possible sentences of more than one year, and Movant's fingerprints matched those associated with the convictions.2 Id.
As to Count Three, on April 6, 2006, officers with the Richland County Sheriff's Department, upon observing "a vehicle leaving a closed business at a high rate of speed," executed a traffic stop. Id. at 46. During the stop, one of the officers observed Movant trying to remove something from his shirt pocket. Id. When the officer attempted to handcuff Movant, a brief struggle ensued, during which Movant attempted to swallow a clear plastic bag containing a white substance. Id. The officers placed Movant under arrest and seized the plastic bag Movant was attempting to swallow, as well as another plastic bag from Movant's shirt pocket. Id. at 47. In total, the officers seized 14.73 grams of a substance that subsequent laboratory tests confirmed was crack cocaine. Id.
Following the Government's summary of the evidence, the following exchange took place between the court, Movant, and his attorney, an Assistant Federal Public Defender:
Id. at 47-48. Thereafter, Movant signed his plea. Id. at 48.
On March 29, 2007, the court sentenced Movant. ECF No. 109. On Count One, Movant faced a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years. See 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2). On Count Three, Movant faced a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years and a maximum term of imprisonment of forty years. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). In applying the Sentencing Guidelines, the court sentenced Movant as a "Career Offender" pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, based on his prior convictions in South Carolina state court for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, and voluntary manslaughter.3 ECF No. 111 at 6-7. In exchange for Movant's cooperation, the Government withdrew its § 851 enhancement based on Movant's prior felony drug conviction, thereby reducing his guideline range from 262-327 months imprisonment to 188-235 months imprisonment.4 ECF Nos. 111 & 113. The court sentenced Movant to a term of imprisonment of 188 months, which consisted of 120 months as to Count One and 188 months as to Count Three, such terms to run concurrently. ECF No. 112. Judgment was entered on April 3, 2007. ECF No. 112. Movant did not file an appeal. On May 5, 2011, the court, pursuant to the Government's Rule 35(b) motion, reduced Movant's sentence to a term of imprisonment of 151 months, which consisted of 120 months as to Count One and 151 months as to Count Three, such terms to run concurrently. ECF No. 169.
On January 14, 2013, Movant formally filed his § 2255 motion, which had attached new evidence in the form of an affidavit signed by Movant's mother, Janice Hallman, dated March 4, 2008. ECF No. 178-2. The affidavit reads:
To continue reading
Request your trial