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.

McCoy v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 4, 2017

STEVEN L. McCOY, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          ORDER ON JOHNSON-BASED PETITION TO VACATE/CORRECT SENTENCE UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2255

          Michael J. Reagan United States District Judge.

         A. Introduction

         In Case No. 07-cr-30012-MJR (“the underlying case”), Steven McCoy was indicted on a charge of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841. In June 2007, McCoy pled guilty to the charges before the undersigned District Judge. His written plea agreement and stipulation of facts are Docs. 37 and 38 in the underlying case. In October 2007, the undersigned sentenced McCoy to 200 months in prison, running consecutively to two sentences McCoy received in state court and was then serving. Judgment was entered October 5, 2007. No direct appeal was filed.

         On June 13, 2016, McCoy filed in this Court a pro se petition to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, which was opened as the above-captioned civil case. The petition is based on Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ____, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), which found unconstitutional one provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), and Welch v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016), which held Johnson retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.

         On threshold review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, the undersigned did not summarily dismiss the petition. The Court ordered briefing but noted one potential obstacle to relief - the petition might be barred by a waiver provision contained in the plea agreement. The threshold review Order also noted that McCoy was not sentenced under the statute struck down in Johnson. He was sentenced under the career offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (§ 4B1.1(a)), and at that point in time it was unclear whether the holding of Johnson extends to the Guidelines.

         Pursuant to Administrative Order 176, the Court appointed the Federal Public Defender's Office for the Southern District of Illinois to assist McCoy in presenting any valid Johnson-based argument. Assistant Federal Public Defender Daniel G. Cronin entered his appearance on McCoy's behalf, and briefs were filed as follows: Mr. Cronin's August 30, 2016 brief on behalf of Petitioner McCoy (Doc. 4), and the United States' October 24, 2016 response (Doc. 9). Petitioner McCoy was given the opportunity to file a pro se reply brief by December 1, 2016 but elected to not do so. The matter is fully ripe. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the petition.

         B. Evidentiary Hearing

         Under Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, this Court must determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Not every petition warrants a hearing. Boulb v. United States, 818 F.3d 334, 339 (7th Cir. 2016). See also Martin v. United States, 789 F.3d 703, 706 (7th Cir. 2015) (“It is well-established that a district court need not grant an evidentiary hearing in all § 2255 cases, ” such as where the record conclusively shows the prisoner is not entitled to relief.); Kafo v. United States, 467 F.3d 1063, 1067 (7th Cir. 2006) (to justify a hearing, petition must be accompanied by a detailed affidavit which shows that the petitioner has actual proof of the allegations going beyond mere unsupported assertions). The record before this Court conclusively reveals that McCoy is not entitled to relief, so no hearing is needed.

         C. Timeliness of Petition

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) imposes a one-year period of limitations for prisoners to file petitions seeking to modify or vacate their sentences under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Usually the period runs from the date on which the judgment of conviction became final. 28 U.S.C. 2255(f); Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 524 (2003).

         The one-year limitation period is triggered by the latest of four events:

(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 ...

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.