Mathison v. United States, C09-4045-MWB
| Decision Date | 21 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. CR06-4030-MWB,No. C09-4045-MWB,C09-4045-MWB,CR06-4030-MWB |
| Parties | RYAN KEITH MATHISON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
A. The Petitioner's Charges, Sentence and Appeal ......................................... 2
B. The Petitioner's § 2255 Motion And Amended Motion .............................. 4
A. Standards For Rule 60(b) Motion ................................................................ 6
B. Application Of The Standards ................................................................... 10
This case is before me on petitioner Ryan Keith Mathison's Pro Se Motion For Relief From Judgment Under the Provisions of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b)(4) or (b)(6) (Civ. docket no. 59), and Pro Se Motion For Second Leave To Amend Petitioner's Pending Rule 60(b) motion (Civ. docket no. 73). In his Rule 60(b) motion, Mathison seeks to have my previous Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment denying him §2255 relief, vacated. He argues that my order denying his § 2255 motion "is void because it was issued in a manner inconsistent with this Court's prior holding." Motion at 1. The respondent has filed a response to Mathison's Rule 60(b) motion. In his motion for leave to amend, Mathison seeks to amend his Rule 60(b) Motion in order to assert a new claim for relief on his § 2255 motion based on the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016). The respondent has not filed a response to Mathison's motion for leave to amend.
A. The Petitioner's Charges, Sentence and
On June 21, 2006, a grand jury returned a seven-count Second Superseding Indictment (Crim. docket no. 185 ) charging Mathison with engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 848(a) & (c) (Count 1); conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and anabolic steroids, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) & 846 (Count 2); conspiracy to engage in money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (B)(i), (B)(ii) and § 1956(h) (Count 3); and filing false tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (Counts 4-7).
Trial began on November 6, 2006. Near the end of the trial, after all but one of the prosecution's witnesses had testified, Mathison voluntarily absconded, violating his pretrial release. Due to the potential danger of prejudice from publicity, I polled the jurors individually to see if they were aware of any pretrial publicity. If an individual juror had been exposed to pretrial publicity, I then proceeded to ascertain the extent and effect of the exposure. One juror was ultimately excused and replaced with an alternate juror on partiality grounds. The remaining jurors indicated they could decide the case based on thefacts introduced at trial and not on the nature of any publicity to which they had been exposed.
On November 15, 2006, the jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts. On November 20, 2006, although Mathison was still at large, his counsel timely filed a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal pursuant to Rule 29(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or in the alternative, a Motion for New Trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, Mathison contended the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support a finding of guilt on each and every count. He alternatively argued he was entitled to a new trial because the evidence weighed heavily enough against the verdict to indicate a miscarriage of justice had occurred. He also contended a new trial was warranted in the interests of justice because he was unduly prejudiced by my failure to grant a mistrial due to the mid-trial publicity that resulted after he absconded. The prosecution timely resisted Mathison's post-trial motions. On November 27, 2006, Mathison was apprehended in Juarez, Mexico, and returned to Iowa. On January 5, 2007, I denied Mathison's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Motion for New Trial.
On May 2, 2007, I sentenced Mathison to 372 months imprisonment on Count 1, 240 months imprisonment on Count 3, and 36 months on each of Counts 4 through 7, the sentences to be served concurrently, and 5 years of supervised release.1 On May 15, 2007, Mathison appealed his sentence. On appeal, Mathison contended there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict, and that it was error to deny his motion for a mistrial based on the jurors' exposure to news and other information concerning his flight. After the case was submitted, Mathison filed a letter with the court of appeals, pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, attempting to raise for the first time asentencing argument based on the Supreme Court's decision in Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007). On March 11, 2008, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Mathison's appeal. See United States v. Mathison, 518 F.3d 935, 942 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2895 (2008). The court of appeals concluded substantial evidence supported Mathison's convictions for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and filing of false tax returns. Id. at 941. The court of appeals further determined I had "meticulously followed" this circuit's prescribed procedure for handling the jurors" possible exposure to adverse publicity or other outside influence concerning Mathison's flight and that I had not abused my discretion in deciding not to grant a new trial. Id. Finally, the court of appeals held Mathison could not raise a new argument in the Rule 28(j) letter, but added "that Mathison and his counsel argued unsuccessfully before the district court that Mathison should receive a variance from the Guidelines sentence, and there is no indication whatsoever that the district court misunderstood the extent of his discretion or erred in exercising it." Id. at 942.
On May 5, 2008, Mathison filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On June 11, 2008, the Supreme Court denied Mathison's petition for a writ of certiorari. See United States v. Mathison, 128 S. Ct. 2895 (2008).
B. The Petitioner's § 2255 Motion And
Amended Motion
Mathison subsequently filed his Motion Under § 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence By A Person In Federal Custody on June 2, 2009 (Civ. docket no. 2). In his § 2255 motion, Mathison alleged his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, by failing to request a change of venue, and in failing to withdraw when a conflict of interest between counsel and Mathison became apparent. Mathison also argued his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection were violated by the disparity in sentencing between himself and co-defendant Shad Derby, and his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise this ground on direct appeal. Inaddition, Mathison contended that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise a sentencing challenge pursuant to Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), in order to preserve the issue for appeal.
On July 10, 2009, Mathison filed a pro se Motion for Substitute Counsel. Concurrently, Mathison's counsel filed a motion to withdraw. Both motions were granted, and substitute counsel was appointed to represent Mathison on his § 2255 motion. Mathison's substitute counsel filed a Modified Petition, a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) challenging Mathison's conviction and sentence, and a motion to withdraw. Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted. Mathison, in turn, filed a pro se Ex Parte Motion To Strike the Modified Petition that was filed by his prior counsel, contending that he disagreed with his former counsel's legal analysis. Mathison also moved for appointment of new counsel. I denied Mathison's motion to strike, but stated I would not consider the arguments raised in Mathison's Modified Petition. Mathison's motion for new counsel was granted, and a second substitute attorney was appointed to represent Mathison on his § 2255 motion. Mathison also sought leave to amend his § 2255 motion and to file an amended supporting brief. Mathison's Motion to Amend was granted. He then filed his amended § 2255 motion and supporting brief. In his amended § 2255 motion, Mathison alleged his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to withdraw when a per se conflict of interest between counsel and Mathison was created, in failing to raise a sentencing challenge pursuant to Gall, and for failing to request a change of venue. Mathison also argued respondent committed prosecutorial misconduct by using the unreliable testimony of Shad Derby during Mathison's trial. In addition, Mathison contended newly discovered evidence, the unreliability of Shad Derby's testimony, entitled him to a new trial. The respondent filed a resistance to Mathison's amended § 2255 motion and Mathison filed a reply brief in support of his amended § 2255 motion.
On July 5, 2011, I denied Mathison's amended § 2255 motion. I also denied Mathison a certificate of appealabity. Mathison appealed the denial of a certificate of...
To continue reading
Request your trial