Miller v. United States

• Docket Number: 1:22-cv-437
• Decision Date: 15 November 2024
• Citation: Miller v. United States, 1:22-cv-437 (W.D. Mich. Nov 15, 2024)
• Parties: JAMES JUNIOR MILLER, Defendant-Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

1

JAMES JUNIOR MILLER, Defendant-Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Respondent.

No. 1:22-cv-437

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

November 15, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER

Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant-MovantJames Junior Miller(“Defendant”)'s counseled motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.(ECF No. 1.)For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion will be denied.

I.Background

On September 26, 2018, Defendant was charged in a Criminal Complaint with: (1) possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), (C), & (D); (2) felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and (3) possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).SeeCrim. Compl., United States v. Miller, No. 1:18-cr-220(W.D. Mich.)(ECF No. 1).After Defendant's arrest, Assistant Federal Public DefenderSean Tilton was appointed to represent him.However shortly thereafter, Cirilio Martinez was appointed to represent Defendant due to a conflict.

On October 10, 2018, a grand jury returned an Indictment charging Defendant with: (1) possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, cocaine, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), & (b)(1)(D); (2) possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C);(3) possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, cocaine, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii), (b)(1)(C), & (b)(1)(D); (4) felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1);(5) possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i);(6) possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C);(7) felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and (8) possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).See Indictment, id.(ECF No. 15).On October 19, 2018, the government filed an Information and Notice of Prior Drug Conviction, noting that Defendant had previously been convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7401(2)(a)(iv), and that he would be subject to enhanced penalties if convicted of Counts One, Two, Three, and Four because of that prior conviction.See Information, id.(ECF No. 25).

On February 25, 2019, Defendant, through counsel, filed a motion to suppress, arguing that law enforcement illegally seized evidence from the vehicles Defendant was driving on three separate occasions, and also seeking suppression of evidence found via a search warrant.SeeMot. to Suppress, id.(ECF No. 32).Defendant also filed a motion for release of exculpatory and impeachment evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83(1963), andGiglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150(1972).See Mot., id.(ECF No. 34).The Court held a hearing regarding the motions on March 7, 2019, and issued orders denying the motions on March 11, 2019.See Orders, id.(ECF Nos. 53, 54).

On March 7, 2019, attorney Martinez moved to withdraw as counsel, citing irreconcilable differences.See Mot., id.(ECF No. 50).The Court denied that motion in an order entered on March 11, 2019.See Order, id.(ECF No. 54).The next day, attorney W. Culpepper, who had been retained by Defendant, filed a motion to substitute attorney.See Mot., id.(ECF No. 55).The Court granted that motion in an order entered the same day.See Order, id.(ECF No. 57).

On July 9, 2019, a grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment charging Defendant with the same eight charges set forth in the original Indictment.See Superseding Indictment, id.(ECF No. 64).However, with respect to Count Three, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, cocaine, and marijuana, the Superseding Indictment set forth that Defendant had previously been convicted of a serious drug felony, namely Controlled Substance-Delivery/Manufacture, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7401(2)(a)(iv).Seeid.(ECF No. 64, PageID.641).The next day, the government filed an Amended Information and Notice of Prior Felony Drug Conviction and Serious Drug Felony, setting forth that offense and noting that Defendant would be subject to enhanced penalties if convicted on Counts On, Two, Three, and Six of the Superseding Indictment because of that prior felony.See Am. Information, id.(ECF No. 66).

On August 6, 2019, attorney Culpepper filed a motion to withdraw, citing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.See Mot., id.(ECF No. 70).On August 13, 2019, attorney Heath Michael Lynch appeared on Defendant's behalf.On August 14, 2019, the Court entered orders approving a motion to substitute counsel and dismissing as moot attorney Culpepper's motion to withdraw.See Orders, id.(ECF Nos. 74, 75).

On September 17, 2019, Defendant, through attorney Lynch, filed another motion to suppress, seeking suppression of evidence obtained “through unconstitutional searches and seizures carried out during the multi-year investigation” of Defendant.SeeMot. to Suppress, id.(ECF No. 80).On September 18, 2019, the Court entered an order interpreting the motion as a motion for reconsideration and denying it.See Order, id.(ECF No. 82).

On September 20, 2019, the government filed a conditional plea agreement in which Defendant agreed to plead guilty to Counts Three and Five of the Superseding Indictment, charging him with possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).See Plea Agreement, id.(ECF No. 85, PageID.899).Defendant reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.Id.The agreement noted that if Defendant prevailed on appeal, he would be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.Id.Defendant appeared before the undersigned for his change of plea hearing on September 20, 2019.See Change of Plea Hr'g Tr., id.(ECF No. 126).

On October 23, 2019, Defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea.See Mot., id.(ECF No. 91).Defendant contended that he wished to withdraw his plea “on the grounds of the drug quantity and ineffective assistance of counsel.”Id.(ECF No. 91, PageID.916).Defendant insisted that counsel misled him regarding his offense level and criminal history category points.Id.(ECF No. 91, PageID.917).The Court held a hearing regarding Defendant's motion on December 2, 2019.See Mot. Hr'g Tr., id.(ECF No. 127).That same day, the Court entered an order denying Defendant's motion.See Order, id.(ECF No. 99).

On December 6, 2019, Defendant filed a pro se motion to substitute counsel.See Mot., id.(ECF No. 102).In an order entered on December 10, 2019, the Court granted that motion.See Order, id.(ECF No. 103).Richard Zambon was then appointed to represent Defendant.

The parties appeared for Defendant's sentencing on March 23, 2020.The Court sentenced Defendant to 130 months of incarceration on Count Three, and a consecutive 60 months of incarceration on Count Five, for a total of 190 months of incarceration.See J., id.(ECF No. 120).

Defendant subsequently appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted attorney Zambon's motion to withdraw.See 6th Cir. Order, id.(ECF No. 124).David Camp was appointed to represent Defendant on appeal.On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress.SeeUnited States v. Miller, 850 Fed.Appx. 370, 371(6th Cir.2021).The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress on March 23, 2021.SeeId.Defendant did not petition the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Defendant, through counsel, filed his § 2255 motion(ECF No. 1) on May 13, 2022.In an order (ECF No. 3) entered that same day, the Court directed the government to file a response to the motion.The government subsequently moved for an extension of time and an order authorizing release of information subject to the attorney-client privilege.(ECF No. 4.)The Court granted that motion in an order (ECF No. 6) entered on May 18, 2022.Subsequently, attorneys Martinez, Zambon, and Lynch filed affidavits responding to Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance.(ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9.)The government filed its response as well as an affidavit from attorney Camp (ECF Nos. 10, 10-3) on July 14, 2022, and Defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 11) on July 26, 2022.

II.Analysis

A.Legal Standards

1.Section 2255 Proceedings in General

A federal prisoner may challenge his sentence by filing in the district court where he was sentenced a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.A valid § 2255 motion requires a movant to show that “the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.”28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).Section 2255 affords relief for a claimed constitutional error only when the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the proceedings.Watson v. United States, 165 F.3d 486, 488(6th Cir.1999).Non-constitutional errors generally are outside the scope of § 2255 relief, and they should afford collateral relief only when they create a “fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of...