Shakir v. United States
| Decision Date | 23 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:17-cv-00002,No. 3:17-cv-00001,3:17-cv-00001,3:17-cv-00002 |
| Parties | JAMAL SHAKIR, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
Jamal Shakir is a prisoner currently in the custody of the State of California awaiting transfer to the Federal Bureau of Prisons to serve ten consecutive life sentences plus twenty years in prison for his federal convictions in two separate cases. He filed two pro se Motions to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his federal sentences in those cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. No. 1; 3:17-cv-00002, Doc. No. 1). Appointed counsel later supplemented those Motions with numerous exhibits. (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. Nos. 2, 19-39; 3:17-cv-00002, Doc. Nos. 4, 22-30, 32). Due to their related subject matter, these cases—although not consolidated—are being briefed by the parties and addressed by the Court in joint, simultaneous filings in both cases to the extent appropriate.1
On March 24, 2008, in Case No. 3:98-cr-00038-11 ("1998 case"), a jury convicted Shakir of the following crimes in violation of federal law: (Count 1) engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise; (Count 2) conspiring to distribute controlled substances and to intentionally kill orcause the killing of five people in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise; (Count 3) conspiring to use and/or carry firearms during and in relation to drug trafficking crimes and crimes of violence; (Counts 4, 9, 14, 31) conspiring to commit money laundering and three counts of money laundering; (Counts 5, 13, 16) three counts of using and/or carrying a firearm during and in relation to drug trafficking crimes and/or crimes of violence; (Counts 7, 10, 18, 19, 37) five counts of first-degree murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise or conspiracy to distribute drugs; (Counts 8, 11, 22, 23, 29, 39) six counts of using a firearm to cause death during and in relation to drug trafficking crimes and/or crimes of violence; (Counts 12, 30) two counts of knowingly using minors in drug trafficking; (Count 15) attempted robbery and extortion affecting commerce through the use of actual and threatened violence; (Count 17) using interstate commerce facility (interstate telephone system) to commit a crime of violence resulting in death; (Counts 20, 21, 38) three counts of unlawful killing to prevent communication of criminal activity to law enforcement; (Counts 24, 25, 26) three counts of firing a weapon into a group of people with the intent to intimidate, harass, injure, and maim, resulting in two deaths and grave risk to another life; (Count 32) possession of cocaine and cocaine base with intent to distribute; and (Counts 40, 41) two counts of obstruction of justice. (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. No. 41-8). The government sought the death penalty for eligible counts of conviction (3:98-cr-00038, Doc. No. 3239), but the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision regarding a death sentence. (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. No. 41-9). The Court sentenced Shakir on December 7, 2009, to an effective term of ten consecutive sentences of life in prison, with fifteen additional life terms to run concurrently. (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. No. 41-10). Shakir filed a timely notice of appeal. (3:98-cr-00038, Doc. No. 3643).
In 2009, while Shakir was still awaiting sentencing on the 1998 case, evidence surfaced of new crimes Shakir was committing from jail in conjunction with associates outside of jail, including Christopher Conyers and "[s]everal people in California, including two of Shakir's relatives (Robyn Shakir and Catherine Lumas)[.]" (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. No. 42-2 at 6-11, 13). Conyers and several others were indicted for their roles in these crimes in 2009. See United States v. Conyers, et al., No. 3:09-cr-00240 (M.D. Tenn.). Shakir, Robyn Shakir, and Catherine Lumas were indicted much later, in September 2014, in Case No. 3:14-cr-00142 ("2014 case"). Specifically, the grand jury charged Shakir alone with: (Count 1) engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise; (Count 2) attempting to escape from custody; (Count 3) conspiring to commit robbery and extortion affecting commerce through the use of actual and threatened violence; and (Count 4) possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. No. 42-1, at 1-7). Shakir, Robyn Shakir, and Lumas were charged in Count 5 with conspiring to distribute controlled substances. (Id. at 7-8).
As a result of negotiations between the government and Shakir's attorneys dating back to at least 2012 (see 3:17-cv-00002, Doc. No. 22-1 at 5), the government and Shakir ultimately entered a plea agreement "intended to provide the global resolution of" both the 1998 case and the 2014 case. (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. No. 42-2 at 1). The "basic terms" of the agreement were:
(a) Defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count One in [the 2014 case]; (b) the parties agree the Court will impose a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, to be served consecutively to all of his federal sentences in [the 1998 case]; (c) Defendant agrees to dismiss the pending appeal in [the 1998 case] and to waive his right to seek further appellate and/or post-conviction review, as set forth below; (d) the government agrees to dismiss the forfeiture allegation as well as Counts Two, Three, Four, and Five in [the 2014 case]; and (e) the government agrees to dismiss all charges in [the 2014 case] against Defendant's co-defendants, Robyn Shakir and Catherine Lumas. Appellate and other post-conviction waivers also apply as to both [the 2014 case] and [the 1998 case] as set forth below.
(3:17-cv-00001, Doc. No. 42-2 at 2). On January 4, 2016, the Court accepted Shakir's petition to plead guilty to Count 1 of the 2014 case, sentenced him to twenty years on that conviction as agreed by the parties, and dismissed Counts 2-5 of the 2014 indictment. (3:14-cr-00142, Doc. No. 101; 3:17-cv-00001, Doc. Nos. 42-3, 42-4).
Meanwhile, Shakir's appeal in the 1998 case had been stayed by the Sixth Circuit since February 25, 2015, on joint motion of the parties for the purpose of continuing settlement negotiations. (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. Nos. 43-4, 43-5). On January 4, 2016—the same day the Court accepted Shakir's plea in the 2014 case—the Sixth Circuit granted Shakir's motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal in the 1998 case. (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. Nos. 43-6, 43-7).
On January 3, 2017, Shakir filed the pending Section 2255 Motions collaterally challenging his convictions in both cases. The Court previously dismissed six of the claims Shakir raised in those Motions on the basis that he waived them in his 2016 plea agreement. (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. Nos. 55, 56). The government responded to the remaining claims in January 2020. (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. No. 59). After a lengthy delay occasioned by the withdrawal and replacement of Shakir's attorney and the need for newly appointed counsel to absorb and investigate these complex cases for the purpose of filing a reply, Shakir's Reply was filed in December 2020. (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. Nos. 60-61, 65, 69-70). At the Court's direction, the government filed a Sur-reply on December 16, 2020. (3:17-cv-00001, Doc. No. 72). Both cases are now before the Court for a final ruling on the remaining claims.
These are the remaining claims in each of Shakir's Section 2255 Motions:
To obtain relief, a prisoner who moves to vacate or correct his sentence under Section 2255 must show that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, that the Court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or that the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The movant "must demonstrate the existence of an error of constitutional magnitude which had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the guilty plea or the jury's verdict." Humphress v. United States, 398 F.3d 855, 858 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733, 736 (6th Cir. 2003)). Non-constitutional errors are generally outside the scope of Section 2255 relief. United States v. Cofield, 233 F.3d 405, 407 (6th Cir. 2000). A movant can prevail on a Section 2255 motion alleging non-constitutional error only by establishing a "fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice, or an error so egregious that it amounts to a violation of due process." Watson v. United States, 165 F.3d 486, 488 (6th Cir. 1999) ().
All federal claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are subject to the highly deferential two-prong standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which asks: (1) whether counsel was deficient in representing the defendant; and (2) whether counsel's alleged deficiencyprejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Id. at 687. To meet the first prong, a movant must establish that his attorney's representation "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness," and must overcome the "strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial