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.

Collins v. United States

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division

January 8, 2020

AHSHUN T. COLLINS, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          OPINION

          SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This cause is before the Court on Petitioner Ahshun T. Collins' Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Relief (d/e 1). The Court must dismiss the motion if it appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that Petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, Rule 4(b). A preliminary review of Petitioner's § 2255 motion and the record of prior proceedings establishes that the motion must be dismissed because Petitioner is not entitled to relief.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On May 5, 2006, Petitioner and several other individuals were charged in a 10-count Indictment. Petitioner was charged in four counts. Count 1 of the Indictment charged Petitioner with conspiring to commit armed bank robbery, commit robbery, and carry and use a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. United States v. Williams et al., No. 06-cr-20032 (hereinafter, Crim.), Indictment (d/e 23), at 1-5. Count 8 charged Petitioner with armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). Id. at 12. Count 9 charged Petitioner with using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Id. at 13. Count 10 charged Petitioner with knowingly possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Id. at 14. On October 25, 2006, Petitioner pleaded guilty to Counts 1, 8, and 9.

         On March 13, 2007, Petitioner appeared before United States District Judge Michael P. McCuskey for sentencing. Judge McCuskey sentenced Petitioner to 60 months' imprisonment on Count 1 and 134 months' imprisonment on Count 8, to be served concurrently, and 84 months' imprisonment on Count 9, to be served consecutively to the terms of imprisonment imposed on Counts 1 and 8. Crim., Judgment (d/e 195), at 3. Judge McCuskey also sentenced Petitioner to 3 years of supervised release on Count 1 and 5 years of supervised release on each of Counts 8 and 9, with the terms to be served concurrently. Id. at 4. Petitioner did not appeal.

         In June 2016, Petitioner filed a § 2255 motion attacking his career offender sentence based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Collins v. United States, No. 16-cv-02181, Motion (d/e 1). On April 13, 2017, Petitioner, through counsel, voluntarily dismissed this § 2255 motion. Collins v. United States, No. 16-cv-02181, Notice (d/e 7).

         In February 2018, Petitioner filed his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Relief, alleging that his former counsel's failure to challenge Petitioner's career offender designation constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. In April 2018, Petitioner filed a motion seeking leave to add a claim that his sentence on Count 9 was imposed in violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights. The Court denied the motion as moot, finding that Petitioner was entitled to amend his § 2255 motion as a matter of course under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court noted that it would consider both of Petitioner's § 2255 claims.

         II. ANALYSIS

         A prisoner claiming that his sentence violates the Constitution may move for the Court “to vacate, set aside, or correct [his] sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Relief under § 2555 is an extraordinary remedy because a § 2255 petitioner has already had “an opportunity for full process.” Almonacid v. United States, 476 F.3d 518, 521 (7th Cir. 2007).

         Petitioner argues that his former counsel's failure to challenge Petitioner's designation as a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. According to Petitioner, his designation as a career offender was erroneous because his sentences on the three qualifying convictions were imposed on the same day.

         Petitioner's § 2255 motion is untimely with respect to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. A one-year period of limitation applies to § 2255 motions. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). The one-year period begins to run 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 ...

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.