Manns v. Hudgins
| Decision Date | 04 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:22-CV-2 (GROH) |
| Parties | TONY MANNS, Petitioner, v. HUDGINS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 4, 2022, the pro se Petitioner filed an Application for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No 1.[1] Petitioner is a federal inmate[2] who is challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence imposed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. This matter is pending before the undersigned for an initial review and Report and Recommendation pursuant to LR PL P 2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
On December 16, 1993, an indictment was returned in the Eastern District of Kentucky, case number 7:93-CR-73, which charged Petitioner with ten drug trafficking and gun crimes, and a forfeiture count. ECF No. 1.[4] On March 3, 1994, Petitioner was convicted of Counts 1 through 10[5] of the indictment. ECF No. 41. Petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 455 months on September 22, 1994.[6] ECF No. 72. The sentence for two consecutive violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), for use of a handgun during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, was for sixty (60) months for the first and for two-hundred forty (240) months for the second violation.[7]ECF No. 391, at 1 - 2. Those sentences were ordered to be consecutively to the one-hundred fifty-five (155) month sentence for other counts of conviction. Id. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on July 13, 1995. ECF No. 95; United States v. Manns, 61 F.3d 904 (6th Cir. 1995).
A later ruling of the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, summarized the proceedings:
In 1994, Tony Manns was tried by a jury and convicted of numerous drug and weapons offenses in connection with the burglaries [or] robberies of three pharmacies. He was sentenced to a total sentence of 455 months, followed by a total of five years of supervised release, and ordered to pay restitution in the total amount of $75,000. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Manns' convictions and sentences. See United States v. Manns, No. 94-6305 (6th Cir. July 13, 1995). Two of the counts involved his use of a handgun during and relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). That section imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for a person who possessed a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime, and a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years for any additional conviction under that provision. In Deal v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the more severe consecutive sentence could be triggered when a defendant is convicted of multiple § 924(c) counts in the same proceeding. 508 U.S. 129, 135-36 (1993). Thus, at the time Mr. Manns was sentenced in 1994, his conviction on the two § 924(c) counts required a sentence of 25 years.
ECF No. 391; United States v. Manns, No. CR 93-73-DLB-EBA-1,2022 WL 2286196, at *1 (E.D. Ky. June 23, 2022).
On July 29, 1996, Petitioner filed a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in the Eastern District of Kentucky, which was assigned case number 7:96-CV-238. ECF No. 100, 102.[9] By memorandum opinion and order issued June 4, 1998, the motion to vacate was denied. ECF Nos. 121, 122.
Petitioner appealed that decision to the Sixth Circuit on July 15, 1998, and the case was assigned docket number 98-6009. ECF Nos. 123, 124, 125. The appeal was dismissed on voluntary motion of the Petitioner, which was filed with the district court on October 29, 1999. ECF No. 134.
Petitioner also repeatedly sought other post-conviction relief. In a December 17, 2013, order the district court wrote:
Manns also filed numerous post-judgment motions to correct perceived errors in his criminal proceedings, including motions to correct clerical errors, to correct the docket sheet, and to correct the record. Other than Manns' motion “to correct the omitted jury note entry on the docket sheet,” which was corrected as requested, all of his post-judgment motions were denied. The Sixth Circuit subsequently affirmed this Court's denial of Mann's Rule 36 motion to correct the record. United States v. Manns, No. 11- 5881 (6th Cir. May 30, 2012).
ECF No. 222. The order further stated that in the motion before the Court, Petitioner sought “a briefing schedule based on his claim that he is actually innocent of carrying a firearm during two robberies.” Id. at 2. The district court found that Petitioner's motion was equivalent to a second or successive habeas petition, for which he had failed to obtain permission from the Sixth Circuit to file. Id. Accordingly, the district court denied relief. Id. Petitioner appealed that order to the Sixth Circuit, in that court's docket number 14-5064. ECF No. 224. On July 27, 2015, the Sixth Circuit, in agreement with the district court, deemed Petitioner's appeal as a request for certification to file a second or successive § 2255 petition, denied the same, and affirmed the district court's order. ECF No. 258.
By order entered February 9, 2015, the district court granted Petitioner relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and reduced Petitioner's sentence from 455 months to 450 months. ECF No. 246. Petitioner also appealed this decision, on February 26, 2015, in the Sixth Circuit's docket number 15-5200. ECF No. 249. The Sixth Circuit remanded the matter for the district court to provide reasons supporting its reduction of sentence. ECF No. 260.
On May 20, 2016, Petitioner filed another motion styled a motion to vacate pursuant to § 2255, and which sought to void the judgment of the court's prior order. ECF No. 273. The district court denied the § 2255 motion as a second or successive motion, on June 17, 2016, and transferred the matter to the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in that court's docket number 16-5896. ECF No. 276. By order issued August 26, 2016, the action was dismissed for want of prosecution. ECF No. 282.
Petitioner filed another § 2255 motion on July 26, 2016, which was again transferred to the Sixth Circuit on July 28, 2016, in that court's docket 16-6341. ECF Nos. 277, 279. The Sixth Circuit denied Petitioner's request to file a second or successive § 2255 motion by order entered October 17, 2016. ECF No. 290.
On March 9, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion in the court of his conviction which was construed by the district court as a motion to vacate Petitioner's conviction and sentence. ECF No. 292. The district court transferred the matter to the Sixth Circuit for further consideration on March 14, 2017. ECF No. 293. The case, assigned docket number 175311, was dismissed for want of prosecution on April 25, 2017. ECF No. 294.
On August 18, 2017, the district court transferred six motions [ECF Nos. 298, 300, 302, 303, 304, and 307] to the Sixth Circuit for further review, in that court's docket number 17-5987. ECF No. 308. The Sixth Circuit dismissed the motions by order filed February 8, 2018, for want of prosecution. ECF No. 313. The district court transferred two additional motions [ECF Nos. 309, 310] to the Sixth Circuit on January 17, 2018, in that court's docket number 18-5067. ECF Nos. 311, 312. The Sixth Circuit again dismissed the action for want of prosecution. ECF No. 314.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Sixth Circuit on September 17, 2018. ECF No. 318. By order entered December 6, 2019, the Sixth Circuit denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 342.
On September 19, 2018, Petitioner filed another motion for relief which the district court construed as a motion to vacate pursuant to § 2255. ECF No. 319. Again, the district court transferred the motion to the Sixth Circuit for consideration in that court's docket number 18-6000. ECF Nos. 320, 322. On March 13, 2019, the Sixth Circuit denied Petitioner's request to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. ECF No. 327.
On August 27, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion for relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B), which the district court construed as a request for relief under the First Step Act. ECF Nos. 349, 350. The district court denied the motion by order entered June 23, 2022. ECF No. 391; 2022 WL 2286196 (E.D. Ky. June 23, 2022). That order noted that although “the First Step Act ended the practice of stacking multiple § 924(c) sentences for a first-time offender such as Mr. Manns. . . [h]owever, § 403 of the First Step Act does not apply retroactively . . . [accordingly] Mr. Manns [ ] cannot benefit directly from the new sentencing regime governing convictions under § 924(c).” ECF 391 at 3.
On April 22, 2021, the Sixth Circuit again denied Petitioner permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. ECF No. 373.
Petitioner filed another motion for relief pursuant to § 2255 on March 23, 2022, in the Sixth Circuit, in that court's docket number 22-5222. ECF No. 384. On September 19, 2022, in its order denying relief, the Sixth Circuit summarized Petitioner's three claims:
(1) he was denied access to the courts because the court reporter falsely certified that the trial transcripts for appeal consisted of the “entire record,” but the record shows that the court reporter did not file a fifth volume of the trial transcript until 2011; (2) his appellate counsel never had access to the entire record, and that entire record will show that he was denied his right to counsel at “multiple critical stages of the proceedings”; and (3) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial