United States v. Jackson
| Docket Number | 1:17-cr-422 |
| Decision Date | 05 July 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, v. TREMAINE JACKSON, DEFENDANT. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Before the Court is the pro se motion of defendant Tremaine Jackson (“Jackson”) to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc No. 76; see Doc. No. 77 (Memorandum in Support).) Plaintiff United States of America (the “government”) opposes the motion (Doc. No. 79 (Response)), and Jackson has replied. (Doc. No. 80 (Reply); Doc. No. 82 (Supplemental Reply).) For the reasons that follow, Jackson's motion is DENIED as time-barred and alternatively, the motion is DENIED on the merits.
On October 18, 2017, a federal grand jury charged Jackson and a second individual in a two-count indictment. (Doc. No. 1 (Indictment); Doc. No. 20 (Superseding Indictment).) Specifically as to Jackson, he was charged in Count One with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). (Doc. No. 20, at 1.[1]) On February 1, 2018, Jackson entered a counseled guilty plea to Count One without a plea agreement. (Minutes of Proceedings [non-document], 2/1/2018; Doc. No. 38 (Transcript of the Guilty Plea Hearing).)
The Court sentenced Jackson on June 6, 2018 to a mid-range guidelines sentence of 52 months of imprisonment.[2] (Doc. No. 32 (Judgment); Minutes of Proceedings [non-document], 6/6/2018.) At the time of sentencing, the Court observed that Jackson was currently serving a state sentence for drug and evidence tampering charges and that he had four additional pending state cases. Only one of the four pending state cases involved conduct that was related to the federal felon-in-possession charge. (Doc. No. 40, at 13-14.) Defense counsel advocated for a low-end sentence and for Jackson's federal sentence to run concurrent to any and all state sentences. (Id. at 12-13.) Nevertheless, the Court determined that the federal sentence would run consecutive to the undischarged state court sentence that Jackson was then serving, as well as to any state court sentence that might be entered in the pending cases. (Id. at 15-19.) The Court observed that such treatment was necessary, given Jackson's continued unwillingness to refrain from possessing weapons while under a disability and was further necessary to protect the public. (Id. at 18.) Defense counsel also requested “jail time credit” for time Jackson had spent in custody prior to sentencing. (Id. at 22.) Noting that Jackson had been in both federal and state custody due to his multiple pending charges, the Court deferred to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to calculate time-served credit for his federal sentence. (Id. at 23.)
Jackson took a direct appeal from the Court's judgment. On March 12, 2019, the Sixth Circuit entered its decision vacating Jackson's sentence. (Doc. No. 49 (Opinion), at 1.) In so ruling, the Sixth Circuit found that the Court had deviated from U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c)'s guidance that a federal sentence should run concurrent to any state sentence involving relevant conduct without specifically discussing the sentencing guideline on the record. The matter was remanded for the limited purpose of permitting the Court to discuss the relevant guideline in relation to its sentence. (Id.)
Jackson was appointed new counsel, and the Court re-sentenced Jackson in a hearing that was conducted on September 4, 2019. (Minutes of Proceedings [non-document], 9/4/2019; Doc. No. 62 (Amended Judgment).) At the re-sentencing hearing, newly appointed defense counsel advanced arguments for concurrent sentences and raised the issue of potential time-served credit. (Doc. No. 67 (Transcript of Re-Sentencing Hearing), at 13-18; see generally Doc. No. 56 (Sentencing Memorandum Opinion).) At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court imposed the same mid-range guidelines sentence of 52 months imprisonment. (Doc. No. 62, at 2.) The Court further ruled that this federal sentence was to be served consecutive to Jackson's undischarged state court cases involving unrelated conduct but “concurrent to any state court sentence imposed relative to” the state case involving conduct related to the present weapons charge. (Id.) As it did during the original sentencing hearing, the Court advised Jackson that the BOP would calculate the appropriate time-served credit in this case. (Doc. No. 67, at 37.)
Jackson took a direct appeal from the Court's Amended Judgment. (Doc. No. 63 (Notice of Appeal).)[3] On June 19, 2020, the Sixth Circuit entered a decision denying Jackson's appeal and affirming this Court's Amended Judgment. (Doc. No. 72 (Opinion).) In his direct appeal, Jackson acknowledged that U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) was no longer applicable but argued that running his federal sentence consecutive to all but one of his state sentences was substantively unreasonable under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d). (Id. at 2.) The Sixth Circuit disagreed, noting that the decision to run a sentence “consecutively to, rather than concurrently with, an undischarged sentence is discretionary[,]” and finding no abuse of discretion. (Id. ().)
On May 20, 2022, Jackson filed the present § 2255 motion. In Ground One, he alleges that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to “effectively calculate [his] ‘time served' jail credits with the AUSA.” (Doc. No. 76, at 2.) In Ground Two, Jackson charges that “there is a discrepancy in his judgment of conviction between his federal case and state cases, as to whether or not they are [to run] concurrently or consecutively, and also which cases apply and earn concurrent jail credits together.” (Id. at 3.) The government argues that Jackson's motion is untimely because it was filed more than one year after his sentence was final and, in any event, would still fail on the merits.
A court should hold an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). Thus, “no hearing is required if the petitioner's allegations ‘cannot be accepted as true because they are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or conclusions rather than statements of fact.'” Arredondo v. United States, 178 F.3d 778, 782 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 240 (8th Cir. 1995)); see also Napier v. United States, No. 93-5412, 1993 WL 406795, at *2 (6th Cir. Oct. 8, 1993) ; cf. Valentine v. United States, 488 F.3d 325, 334 (6th Cir. 2007) ().
The Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted in the present case. The undisputed facts in the record demonstrate that Jackson's § 2255 motion-filed more than one year after his amended sentence became final-is time-barred under the governing statute. Looking past the tardy filing to the merits, the Court further finds that Jackson has failed to identify facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief under § 2255. Moreover, many of the arguments offered by Jackson in support of the present motion are either contradicted by the record, non-cognizable on a § 2255 motion, or are adverted to in a perfunctory and conclusory manner, preventing further review by this Court.
The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (ADEPA) “provides a one-year statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas petition.” Cleveland v. Bradshaw, 693 F.3d 626, 631 (6th Cir. 2012). Specifically, a prisoner must file his § 2255 motion within one year of the latest of:
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
Here, the Amended Judgment was entered on September 4, 2019 and was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit on June 19, 2020. Because Jackson did not seek a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, his judgment became final on September 19, 2020, which was 90 days after the Sixth Circuit entered judgment. See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 525, 527, 123 S.Ct. 1072, 155 L.Ed.2d 88 (2003). Jackson was required to file his § 2255 motion by September 20, 2021.[4] Instead, he filed the instant motion on May 20, 2022, 8 months after the limitations period had expired. Accordingly, the motion is not timely under § 2255(f)(1).
Jackson does not identify an impediment created by the government, or a new right that was originally recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review, to justify the delay in filing...
To continue reading
Request your trial