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.

Parker v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

July 13, 2017

LAMONT PARKER, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          ORDER

          W. EARL BRITT SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the court on petitioner's pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and related filings.

         By way of background, in 2009, pursuant to a plea agreement, petitioner pled guilty to one count of possession with the intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base (crack) and a quantity of 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamohetamine (ecstasy), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The court deemed petitioner a career offender under the sentencing guidelines and sentenced him to a 150-month term of imprisonment. Petitioner's appeal was dismissed, (DE # 53), and his petition for a writ of certiorari was denied, Parker v. United States, No. 10-7358 (U.S. Dec. 6, 2010).

         In 2011, petitioner filed pro se his first § 2255 motion. (DE # 80.) Petitioner claimed (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) breach of contract, (3) violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 inasmuch as he did not fully understand the waiver of the right to appeal in his plea agreement, and (4) his sentence as a career offender violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. On initial review, the court dismissed claims (2), (3), and (4) in their entirety and allowed the ineffective assistance of counsel claim to proceed to the extent that petitioner claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to contest the career offender enhancement. (DE # 81.) On the government's motion, the court granted summary judgment for the government on this remaining claim and issued a certificate of appealability “as to whether petitioner is entitled to habeas corpus relief on the ground that counsel was ineffective by failing to object to the career offender enhancement.” (DE # 118.) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this court's rejection of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on the failure to object to the career offender enhancement and dismissed the appeal as to petitioner's other claims. (DE # 123.)

         In early 2016, based on the standing order of this court, the Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent petitioner. (DE # 147.) In June 2016, the Court of Appeals granted petitioner's consolidated motions[1] to file a second or successive § 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (“Johnson II”). (DE # 151.) Shortly thereafter, the Federal Public Defender on behalf of petitioner filed a § 2255 motion. (DE # 152.) On the government's unopposed motion, this court stayed the matter pending the decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017). (DE # 157.)

         In March 2017, in light of the decision in Beckles, the Federal Public Defender moved to withdraw as counsel for petitioner. (DE # 160.) Petitioner decided to proceed pro se and filed a motion to “supplement.” In that motion, petitioner requests that the “brief” filed by the Federal Public Defender be withdrawn and that pro se briefing proceed. (DE # 159.) Petitioner also claims he is entitled to relief based on Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). (Id.)

         In April 2017, the court lifted the stay, granted the Federal Public Defender's motion to withdraw as counsel, and directed the government to file an answer or other response to petitioner's § 2255 motion (filed by the Federal Public Defender) and a response to the motion to supplement. (DE # 161.) The government filed a motion to dismiss petitioner's motions. (DE # 162.) Petitioner filed a “reply” to the government's motion to dismiss, (DE # 164), and a motion for an extension of time to file a copy of his pro se § 2255 motion, (DE # 165). Most recently, the court received for filing from the Court of Appeals petitioner's second pro se § 2255 motion, which as previously noted, that court granted authorization to file. (DE # 166.) This court has filed that motion, (DE # 167), and therefore, petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a copy of it is DENIED as moot.

         Because petitioner wishes to proceed pro se, the § 2255 motion filed with the assistance of counsel, (DE # 152), is deemed WITHDRAWN, and the government's motion to dismiss that § 2255 motion is DENIED as moot. The court will proceed to consider petitioner's second pro se § 2255 motion and his motion to supplement.

         As for petitioner's second pro se § 2255 motion, the court must first examine whether the claims in that motion satisfy the standard for a successive claim under § 2255(h), see United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003) (recognizing that once an authorized, successive collateral review application is “submitted to the district court, that court must examine each claim and dismiss those that are barred under § 2244(b) or § 2255[h].” (citing 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(b)(4); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 899 (5th Cir. 2001))). Under the relevant portion of this section, a claim that does not rely on “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable, ” must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2); see also id. § 2244(b)(2)(A). Otherwise, the court considers the merits of the claim.

         Petitioner's first claim challenges the enhancement of his sentence based on the career offender sentencing guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. A defendant is a career offender

if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) (2016). At the time the court sentenced petitioner, a “crime of violence” for purposes of the career offender guideline was defined as any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that-

(1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or
(2) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk ...

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.