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.

Shadburn v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division

February 20, 2019

KATHY JUNE SHADBURN, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

         This matter comes before the court on the motion of Kathy June Shadburn to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The government has responded to the motion, and the matter is ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the instant motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence will be dismissed, as the Movant waived her right to seek post-conviction collateral relief in her plea agreement, and she procedurally defaulted the sole claim raised in the instant motion.

         Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

         The writ of habeas corpus, a challenge to the legal authority under which a person may be detained, is ancient. Duker, The English Origins of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: A Peculiar Path to Fame, 53 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 983 (1978); Glass, Historical Aspects of Habeas Corpus, 9 St. John's L.Rev. 55 (1934). It is "perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law of England," Secretary of State for Home Affairs v. O'Brien, A.C. 603, 609 (1923), and it is equally significant in the United States. Article I, § 9, of the Constitution ensures that the right of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, except when, in the case of rebellion or invasion, public safety may require it. Habeas Corpus, 20 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Deskbook § 56. Its use by the federal courts was authorized in Sectionl4 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Habeas corpus principles developed over time in both English and American common law have since been codified:

The statutory provisions on habeas corpus appear as sections 2241 to 2255 of the 1948 Judicial Code. The recodification of that year set out important procedural limitations and additional procedural changes were added in 1966. The scope of the writ, insofar as the statutory language is concerned, remained essentially the same, however, until 1996, when Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, placing severe restrictions on the issuance of the writ for state prisoners and setting out special, new habeas corpus procedures for capital cases. The changes made by the 1996 legislation are the end product of decades of debate about habeas corpus.

Id.

         Section 2255 Proceedings

         Section 28 U.S.C. § 2255 permits an inmate serving a sentence after conviction of a federal crime "to move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). As with the writ of habeas corpus, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254, a § 2255 motion sets forth only four bases on which a motion may be made: (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). Thus, a prisoner must claim either a constitutional violation or want of subject matter jurisdiction to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the absence of constitutional or jurisdictional defects, a federal prisoner may invoke § 2255 only if the error constitutes "a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice." United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979).

         The district court must first conduct a preliminary review of a section 2255 motion, and "[i]f it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of the prior proceeding that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion." Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, Rule 4(b). If the motion raises a non-frivolous claim to relief, the court must order the Government to file a response or to take other appropriate action. Id. The judge may then require the parties to expand the record as necessary and, if good cause is shown, authorize limited discovery. Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, Rules 6-7.

         After reviewing the government's answer, any transcripts and records of prior proceedings, and any supplementary materials submitted by the parties, the court must decide whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, Rule 8. Under the statute, an evidentiary hearing must be held unless "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). However, the court need not hold an evidentiary hearing if the prisoner fails to produce "independent indicia of the likely merit of [his] allegations." United States v. Edwards, 442 F.3d 258, 264 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Cervantes, 132 F.3d 1106, 1110 (5th Cir. 1998)).

         Ultimately, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing his claims of error by a preponderance of the evidence. See Wright v. United States, 624 F.2d 557, 558 (5th Cir. 1980). For certain "structural" errors, relief follows automatically once the error is proved. See Burgess v. Dretke, 350 F.3d 461, 472 (5th Cir. 2003). For other errors at the trial court level, the court may grant relief only if the error "had substantial and injurious effect or influence" in determining the outcome of the case. Brecht v. Abrahmson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993); see also United States v. Chavez, 193 F.3d 375, 379 (5th Cir. 1999) (applying Brecht's harmless error standard in a § 2255 proceeding). If the court finds that the prisoner is entitled to relief, it "shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).

         Facts and Procedural Posture

         In October 2014, a Grand Jury returned an Indictment charging Kathy June Shadburn, along with many other defendants, regarding the criminal activities of the Aryan Brotherhood of Mississippi ("ABM"), a violent, race-based prison gang. The Indictment charged Ms. Shadburn with Conspiracy to Participate in Racketeering Activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846. (See Superseding Indictment, Doc. 203). The charges against Ms. Shadburn arose from her involvement with Perry Mask, one of the primary leaders of the ABM, who was serving a life sentence for murder at the time of the racketeering conspiracy.

         In April of 2015, the Grand Jury returned a Superseding Indictment against Ms. Shadburn and sixteen co-defendants. The charges against her remained unchanged in the Superseding Indictment. On September 14, 2015, she changed her plea to guilty on Count One of the original Indictment and explicitly waived her right to collaterally attack her conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255. (See Plea Agreement, ¶ 5; Attached Exhibit "A" of the Government's response). With two prior drug trafficking felonies on her record, Ms. Shadburn qualified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines, and her Pre-Sentence Investigation Report ("PSR") provided for a guideline imprisonment range of 262 months to 327 months with a total offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of VI. (PSR, ¶ 97).

         On December 17, 2015, the court sentenced Shadburn to 96 months imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. She did not pursue a direct appeal of her conviction or sentence. She then filed a motion for credit for 45 days served at the Federal Medical Center Carswell for a mental capacity evaluation (Doc. 451), which the court denied (Doc. 484).

         Ms. Shadburn then filed the present motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence. The sole claim she raised is that she played "a minor role and is entitled to injunction." (See § 2255 Petition, Doc. 614, p. 5). She claims that she did not pursue a direct appeal on this issue because the "Amendment just became available." (See ยง 2255 Petition, ...


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.