Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
MARTIN v. U.S.
December 12, 2001
MICHAEL R. MARTIN, PETITIONER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge:
MSI and Michael R. Martin.
On August 16, 1997, a jury found Petitioner guilty of sixteen counts of
mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and guilty of one count of bribery
18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B)). On June 22, 1998, the Court sentenced
Petitioner to 70 months of imprisonment and ordered him to pay
restitution, along with his co-Defendant, in the amount of $12,300,00.00
to the Illinois Department of Public Aid. On appeal, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed Petitioner's
convictions but reversed Petitioner's sentence regarding the amount of
restitution imposed. United States v. Martin, 195 F.3d 961 (7th Cir.
1999), cert. denied 530 U.S. 1263 (2000). Accordingly, the Seventh
Circuit remanded the matter back to this Court to re-calculate the amount
of restitution owed by Petitioner. Id. at 970.
Petitioner has now filed the instant petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 asking the Court to vacate, set aside, or correct
his sentence. Therein, Petitioner asserts that his due process rights
were violated during his sentencing hearing. Specifically, Petitioner
argues that his incarceration is constitutionally infirm because his
imprisonment was, and continues to be, based upon an incorrect
determination of the amount of loss at issue in this case, i.e., an
amount of loss which was tied to the amount of restitution originally
imposed but later substantially reduced by the Court upon remand.
Petitioner contends that there is a correlation between the amount of
loss for purposes of calculating a defendant's adjusted offense level
under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 and the amount of restitution imposed pursuant
to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. Because
the Court substantially reduced the amount of restitution owed by him,
Petitioner claims that the Court should equally reduce the amount of loss
attributable to him which, in turn, would reduce his adjusted offense
level by eight levels, making his applicable sentencing guideline range
30-37 months rather than the 70-87 months as previously found by the
Court. To do otherwise, Petitioner argues, would deny him his due
process right to be sentenced upon reliable information, would be
fundamentally unfair, and would constitute a miscarriage of justice.
The Government argues that Petitioner's petition should be denied for
three reasons. First, the Government asserts that this issue has been
previously decided by the Seventh Circuit and by this Court against
Petitioner. Thus, the Government contends that the Court should reject
Petitioner's claim because there are no changed circumstances which would
require the Court to revisit this issue and because the law of the case
doctrine dictates that result.
Second, the Government argues that the Court should deny Petitioner's
§ 2255 petition because he has failed to establish cause for his
failure to raise the issue at the appropriate time on direct appeal.
Third, the Government claims that Petitioner has failed to establish
prejudice. Accordingly, the Government asks the Court to deny
Petitioner's § 2255 petition.
Upon review of the pleadings and all of the exhibits, the Court
concludes that an evidentiary hearing is not required. Accordingly,
pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules Governing § 2255 cases, the Court will
dispose of ...
Buy This Entire Record For