Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Jackson

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

May 19, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
STEVIE N. JACKSON, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

         This matter is before the Court, sua sponte under rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, on Defendant Stevie N. Jackson's motion requesting the Holloway doctrine to be applied to his criminal case, 06-CR-01795-RB, which was docketed as a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [CV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 129] Also before the Court is a letter from Defendant asking the Court to hold his Holloway “motion in abeyance until [his] attorney can contact this court with further help on [his] behalf.” [CV Doc. 2; CR Doc. 130] For the reasons explained below, Defendant's motion to hold this matter in abeyance will be denied, Defendant's Holloway motion will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as a second or successive § 2255 motion filed without authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, a certificate of appealability will be denied, and judgment will be entered.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On August 16, 2006, Defendant was charged by Indictment with unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams and more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. [CR Doc. 10] On February 9, 2007, an Amended Information was filed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) seeking an enhanced penalty of “life imprisonment without release; and a fine not to exceed $8, 000, 000.00” under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) based on Defendant's three prior convictions for felony drug offenses. [CR Doc. 39] Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the crime charged in the Information and sentenced to life imprisonment consistent with the Amended Information. [CR Doc. 71] Judgment was entered on Defendant's conviction and sentence on August 22, 2007. [CR Doc. 71] Defendant filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed his conviction and sentence. [CR Docs. 72, 85]

         On July 16, 2009, Defendant filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 contending, in relevant part, that a sentence of life imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 851 constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and was “unacceptable due to the changing views of the Justice Department, Federal Judges, the Sentencing Commission, the present administration, the public and the Congress of the United States.” [CR Doc. 86 at 1] Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen recommended that Defendant's § 2255 motion be dismissed, in relevant part, because his “sentencing claims are without merit.” [CR Doc. 92 at 26] District Court Judge Michael J. Reagan adopted Magistrate Judge Molzen's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, dismissed Defendant's § 2255 motion, and denied a certificate of appealability. [CR Doc. 94] Defendant filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. [CR Doc. 104] Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, which was denied. [CR Doc. 108, 110]

         On May 13, 2011, while Defendant's appeal was pending, he filed a Motion for Relief From Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)(4)(6), which challenged Judge Reagan's authority to rule on Defendant's § 2255 motion and sought to supplement the record in the § 2255 proceeding. [CR Doc. 100] The Court determined that Defendant's motion was a “true” Rule 60(b) motion to the extent that it challenged the integrity of the § 2255 proceedings in light of Judge Reagan's participation, but denied the motion because “Judge Reagan [had] authority to act as a judge in this District throughout 2011 due to an intercircuit assignment for that duration approved by the Chief Justice of the United States.” [CR Doc. 101 at 4] The Court determined that Defendant's motion was a successive § 2255 motion to the extent that it sought to supplement the record in the § 2255 proceeding and, therefore, dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. [Doc. 101 at 6]

         On June 10, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion For Reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), asking the Court to reconsider its order denying in part and dismissing in part his Rule 60(b) motion. [CR Doc. 102] The Court found no basis for reconsideration and, therefore, denied the motion. [CR Doc. 103]

         On October 12, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion For Relief From Judgment Dismissing Initial Review Collateral Proceeding § 2255 Motion To Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence For Lack of Legal Representation or Cousel [sic] Pursuant To Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(b)(6) and Intervening Change In Supreme Court Decision In Martinez v. Ryan 182 L.Ed.2d 271, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (March 20, 2012). [CR Doc. 113] Magistrate Judge Molzen recommended denying Defendant's motion. [CR Doc. 114] This Court adopted the recommendation and denied Defendant's motion for relief from judgment. [Doc. 116]

         On December 11, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion To Vacate Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition Due To Clerical Error In Docket Date of Filing Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). [Doc. 117] The Court determined that Defendant's motion was a “true” Rule 60(b) motion, but nonetheless denied the motion and denied a certificate of appealability. [CR Doc. 118]

         On October 14, 2016, Defendant filed the present motion requesting the Holloway doctrine be applied to his criminal case, 06-CR-01795-RB. [CV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 129] On October 24, 2016, Defendant filed a letter asking the Court to “place [his] current motion in abeyance” until his court appointed attorney, Assistant Federal Public Defender Steve Sosa, “can contact this court with further help on [his] behalf.” [CV Doc. 2; CR Doc. 130] On October 28, 2016, the Court permitted Attorney Sosa to withdraw as counsel for Defendant and appointed substitute counsel, Attorney Brock Benjamin, to represent Defendant in this proceeding. [CR Doc. 133; CV Doc. 3]

         II. DISCUSSION

         The Court first will consider Defendant's motion for stay of the present proceedings and then will proceed to review the merits of Defendant's Holloway motion.

         A. Defendant's Motion To Hold This Matter In Abeyance Will Be Denied

         On October 24, 2016, Defendant moved the Court to hold his Holloway motion in abeyance until Attorney Sosa “can contact this court with further help on [his] behalf.” [CV Doc. 2; CR Doc. 130] The Court subsequently granted Attorney Sosa's motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendant and appointed substitute counsel, Attorney Brock, on October 31, 2016. [CV Doc 3; CR Docs. 132, 133] More than six months have passed and Attorney Brock has not filed any motions or pleadings on Defendant's behalf. The Court can perceive no reason to delay its preliminary review of Defendant's Holloway motion and, therefore, Defendant's request to hold this matter in abeyance will be denied.

         B. Defendant's Holloway Motion Is A Second Or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.