Craig v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 16

ORDERED that: 1) Plf's 14 Objection is OVERRULED; 2) The 11 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 3) Petitioner's § 2255 motion is DENIED because the claims therein entitle him to no relief; and 4) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/11/2012. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES DANIEL CRAIG,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-558-WKW

ORDER
The previous order adopting the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to
deny Petitioner’s § 2255 motion and final judgment have been vacated, due to
Petitioner’s timely mailed objections being inexplicably returned to him. Petitioner’s
objections will now be considered. The court reviews de novo the portion of the
Recommendation to which the objection applies. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Petitioner’s objections to the Recommendation are the same arguments
presented before the Magistrate Judge, namely, that his counsel was ineffective for
failing to challenge the district court’s application of a two-level firearm enhancement
under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, for failing to make another motion for
judgment of acquittal after the jury’s verdict and on direct appeal, and for misadvising
him of his maximum sentencing exposure if convicted. Petitioner’s objections are
without merit.

First, Petitioner’s counsel objected to the two-level firearm

enhancement at sentencing and on direct appeal. Second, Petitioner’s counsel moved
for a judgment of acquittal at trial, and the district court reserved ruling on that motion
until after the jury’s verdict. Furthermore, there was ample evidence presented at trial
to sustain the Petitioner’s convictions. Third, Petitioner fails to demonstrate any
prejudice resulting from his counsel’s allegedly deficient performance in misadvising
him about his maximum sentence because Petitioner does not allege there was a more
favorable plea offer in existence, or that he would have pled guilty had he known that
he could receive a sentence of more than ten years.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s objection (Attach. C to Doc. # 14) is OVERRULED;

2.

The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 11) is
ADOPTED;

3.

Petitioner’s § 2255 motion is DENIED because the claims therein entitle
him to no relief; and

4.

This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

An appropriate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 11th day of September, 2012.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2