Slocum v. United States, 2:17-cv-03759
| Decision Date | 28 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2:17-cv-03759,Criminal 2:13-cr-00274 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | WILLIE SLOCUM, JR., Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On August 4, 2017, Movant, Willie Slocum, Jr. (“Slocum”), submitted a pro se Motion to Vacate Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255. (ECF No. 165).[1] Pending before the Court are Slocum's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss the Indictment in Light of Rehaif, (ECF No. 197); Letter-Form Motion to Take Notice and Apply Gamble to Case, (ECF No. 198); Supplemental Motion to Amend His Argument Regarding § 922(g)(1) Claims in Light of Rehaif, (ECF No. 199); Motion for the Court to Take Notice of Two Recent Court Decisions under Rehaif, (ECF No. 201) Motion for Leave to File the Attached Answer Beyond Page Limit, (ECF No. 210); and Respondent's Omnibus Response and request for dismissal. (ECF No. 207). This matter is assigned to the Honorable John T. Copenhaver, Jr., United States District Judge, and by Standing Order has been referred to the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge for the submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Having determined from a thorough review of the record that Slocum clearly is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on his various motions, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the presiding District Judge GRANT Movant's Motion for Leave to File the Attached Answer Beyond Page Limit, (ECF No. 210) GRANT Respondent's Omnibus Response and request for dismissal, (ECF No. 207); DENY the following: Movant's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss the Indictment in Light of Rehaif (ECF No. 197); Letter-Form Motion to Take Notice and Apply Gamble to Case, (ECF No. 198); Supplemental Motion to Amend His Argument Regarding § 922(g)(1) Claims in Light of Rehaif, (ECF No. 199); and Motion for the Court to Take Notice of Two Recent Court Decisions under Rehaif. (ECF No. 201); and DISMISS this case, removing it from the docket of the Court.
On July 22, 2014, a federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of West Virginia returned a second superseding indictment, charging Slocum with one count of conspiracy to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin, (“Count One”); one count of conspiracy to distribute a quantity of oxycodone, (“Count Two”); two counts of possession of a firearm while being a convicted felon (“Count Three” and “Count Four”); and one count of using intimidation to corruptly persuade a person with the intent of preventing that person's testimony in an official proceeding (“Count Five”). (ECF No. 29 at 1-5). On November 7, 2014, following a four-day federal trial, the jury returned from its deliberations and announced a verdict of guilty on all counts. (ECF No. 148 at 98-99).
On February 4, 2015, Slocum appeared before the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (“District Court”) for sentencing. (ECF No. 149 at 1). Following a hearing, the District Court imposed a sentence of 30 years on Count One; 20 years on Count Two; 10 years on Count Three; 10 years on Count Four; and 20 years on Count Five. All sentences were set to run concurrently to Count One, giving Slocum a total sentence of 30-years imprisonment. (Id. at 72-73). The District Court additionally sentenced Slocum to a five-year period of supervised release. (Id. at 73).
On April 22, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“Fourth Circuit”) denied Slocum's appeal and affirmed the judgment of the District Court. See United States v. Slocum, 646 Fed.Appx. 294, 295 (4th Cir. 2016). Slocum's motion to file a pro se supplemental brief was additionally denied. Id. at 297. On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) denied Slocum's petition for a writ of certiorari. (ECF No. 162 at 1).
On August 4, 2017, Slocum filed a 217-page typewritten document, which he entitled “Slocum Moves Under Section[s] 2255, 2241, 1651, of Title 28 United States Code and Audita Querela, Coram Nobis.” (ECF No. 165). In this document, Slocum raises numerous challenges to the validity of his conviction and sentence. The petition was referred to the undersigned for Findings of Fact and Recommendations for disposition. (ECF No. 166).
On May 6, 2019, the undersigned submitted Proposed Findings and Recommendations (“PF&R”) wherein the undersigned recommended that Slocum's § 2255 petition be denied and Respondent's motion for dismissal of the petition be granted. (ECF No. 193). Slocum submitted his Objections to the PF&R on May 28, 2019. (ECF No. 196). On July 11, 2019, Slocum submitted a document entitled Supplemental Motion to Amend His Argument Regarding § 922(g)(1) Claim in Light of Rehaif. (ECF No. 197). In the motion, Slocum argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), renders his indictment invalid. (Id. at 1-2). Slocum asserts that United States failed to ever inform the grand jury that it must find Slocum knew he was prohibited from owning a firearm due to his status as a felon. (Id. at 2).
Slocum further makes arguments related to his rights under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (“Second Amendment”), saying that he “has always believed that he possessed a Second Amendment Right to have a firearm.” (Id.). Slocum contends that as he “had no idea that he did not have a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm, ” this Court must vacate his convictions and order a new trial in light of Rehaif and Lambert v. People of the State of California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957). (Id. at 5).
On July 25, 2019, Slocum submitted a Motion asking the Court to Take Notice and Apply Gamble to Case. (ECF No. 198). Slocum contends that the Supreme Court's decision in Gamble v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 1960 (2019), provides further support for the claim he raised in his pending § 2255 petition that his convictions were obtained in violation of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (“Fifth Amendment”). (Id. at 1). Slocum also indicates his belief that a concurring opinion submitted by Justice Thomas provides support for arguments Slocum made related to the commerce clause and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (“Tenth Amendment”). (Id. at 1-2).
On August 15, 2019, Slocum submitted a Motion entitled Slocum Moves to Amend His Arguments[s] Regarding the § 922(g) Claim In Light Rehaif. (ECF No. 199). In this motion, Slocum again asserts that the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif renders his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm invalid. (Id. at 1). Slocum states that he “is actually innocent of his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) because is believed [sic] that he had a Second Amendment right to have a gun.” (Id.). Slocum asserts that the United States failed to prove that he knew he was unable to own a weapon, and also claims that the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutional given his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. (Id. at 1-2).
Finally, on September 18, 2019, Slocum submitted a Motion for the Court to Take Notice of Two Recent Court Decisions under Rehaif. (ECF No. 201). Slocum calls the Court's attention to two court cases from the Tenth Circuit: United States v. Haag, 773 Fed.Appx. 1042 (10th Cir. 2019), and United States v. Mansfield, No. 18-CR-00466-PAB, 2019 WL 3858511 (D. Colo. Aug. 16, 2019). Slocum asks this Court to take notice of these cases and their disposition. (Id. at 1).
On November 19, 2019, the District Court entered an Order, referring the various motions filed by Slocum since the entry of the PF&R recommending dismissal, to the undersigned for consideration. (ECF No. 205). On November 25, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order directing Respondent to respond to Slocum's various motions. (ECF No. 206). Respondent complied, submitting an Omnibus Response on December 20, 2019. (ECF No. 207). Respondent contends that Slocum's request to amend his § 2255 petition should be denied. (Id. at 1-2). Respondent believes Slocum is unable to amend his petition to assert a claim under the aegis of Rehaif primarily because “the record clearly supports [Slocum's] knowledge of his prohibited status at the time he possessed the firearms.” (Id. at 10). Respondent asserts that for Slocum to claim he was unaware of his status as a convicted felon, as is necessary to avail himself of the right recognized in Rehaif, is “absurd” in view of the clear evidence that Slocum was aware of his status. (Id. at 11).
Respondent further contends that Slocum should not be permitted to amend his petition to include a new claim based on the Second Amendment as it does not “relate back” to the original petition and is, in any event, entirely baseless. (Id. at 12-13). Respondent discusses the two cases from the Tenth Circuit which Slocum asked this Court to consider, and concludes that they are not relevant to Slocum's petition. (Id. at 15). Finally, Respondent argues that Slocum fails to identify how the decision in Gamble affects his petition; thus, his motion requesting this Court to apply this case to his habeas petition should be denied. (Id. at 13-14).
On January 31, 2020, Slocum submitted a response entitled “Slocum Submits His Answer to the Government's Red-Herring Response.” (ECF No. 210-1). As Slocum's response is 105 pages, Slocum requests leave to “exceed the page limit for filing an answer brief.” (ECF No 210 at 1). In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial