United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Delta Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL P. MILLS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Willie
Lee Fields (“Fields”) has filed a “Judicial
Notice/Relevant Legal/Factual Basis for Order to Clarify
Judgment to Correct Federal Records, ” which this Court
construed as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 after providing the
appropriate notice to Fields. See Castro v. United
States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003). Having considered the
pleadings and the record, including the relevant parts of
Fields' underlying criminal case, along with the relevant
law, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is
unnecessary[1], and that the § 2255 motion should be
denied.
Background
Facts and Procedural History
Fields
was indicted for possession with intent to distribute in
excess of 50 grams of cocaine base on March 26, 2009. Doc.
#3. On September 21, 2009, the Government filed an
information to establish a prior conviction under 21 U.S.C.
§ 851. Doc. #32. That information noticed Fields that
the Government intended to seek an enhanced sentence based on
Fields' previous drug conviction[2], the sentencing judgment of
which was attached to the information. Id.
Furthermore, the information listed the enhanced penalties of
not less than 20 years and not more than life imprisonment,
along with fines, supervised release, and ineligibility for
federal benefits. Id.
On
January 6, 2010, Fields filed an objection to the information
for enhancement, arguing that the Government filed the
information to punish Fields for pleading guilty. Doc. #44.
On February 10, 2010, the Court overruled Fields'
objection. Doc. #50. On February 19, 2010, Fields filed a
motion to suppress evidence based on the underlying traffic
stop, which was the basis of the charge. Doc. #51. On
February 26, 2010, the Court held a hearing on the motion to
suppress and denied the motion. Doc. #65. Trial began on
March 22, 2010, and on March 23, 2010, a jury returned a
verdict of guilty. Doc. #72. On October 27, 2010, Fields was
sentenced to 240 months imprisonment. Doc. #92. Judgment was
entered November 2, 2010. Id.
Fields
appealed the denial of the motion to suppress and the failure
to apply the Fair Sentencing Act to the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals, which affirmed this Court's ruling on April
13, 2012. Doc. #109. Following the Supreme Court decision in
Dorsey v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 2321 (2012), the
Fifth Circuit remanded Fields' sentencing to the district
court based on retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing
Act. Doc. #113. Subsequently, on February 4, 2013, Fields
filed a motion for retroactive application of the sentencing
guidelines to crack cocaine offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582. Doc. #114. That motion was granted, and his
sentence reduced to 120 months on February 4, 2013. Doc.
#115.
On or
about November 13, 2015, Fields filed the instant motion to
clarify his judgment, arguing that his sentence exceeded the
statutory maximum, and that the Government violated his
constitutional rights by failing to file an information for
enhancement prior to the selection of the jury. Doc. #121 at
2-3. This Court construed the filing as a § 2255 motion
and provided notice to Fields that he had an opportunity to
withdraw or amend the pleading. Doc. #123. Fields did not
respond to the Court's order.
Legal
Standard
After
a defendant has been convicted and exhausted his appeal
rights, a court may presume that “he stands fairly and
finally convicted.” United States v. Frady,
456 U.S. 152, 164 (1982). A motion brought pursuant to §
2255 is a “means of collateral attack on a federal
sentence.” Cox v. Warden, Federal Detention
Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation
omitted). There are four separate grounds upon which a
federal prisoner may move to vacate, set aside, or correct a
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255: (1) the sentence was
imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States; (2) the court was without jurisdiction to
impose the sentence; (3) the sentence exceeds the statutory
maximum sentence; or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to
collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Collateral
attack limits a movant's allegations to those of
“constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude.”
United States v. Samuels, 59 F.3d 526, 528 (5th Cir.
1995) (citation omitted). Relief under § 2255 is
reserved, therefore, for violations of “constitutional
rights and for that narrow compass of other injury that could
not have been raised on direct appeal and, would, if
condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice.”
United States v. Capua, 656 F.2d 1033, 1037 (5th
Cir. 1981).
Additionally,
a motion filed under § 2255 must comply with the
statute's one-year period of limitation, which runs from
the latest of:
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion
created by governmental action in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
movant was prevented from making a motion by such
governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
...