Davis v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 23

ORDER directing that, upon an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, it is ORDERED that Mr. Davis's objections (Doc. # 22 ) are OVERRULED, that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 21 ) is ADOPTED, and that the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is DENIED with prejudice; A separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/9/14. (scn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
WILLIE GENE DAVIS,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Petitioner.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-38-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
On August 13, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this
case. (Doc. # 21.) On August 29, 2014, Petitioner Willie Gene Davis filed
Objections. (Doc. # 22.) The court has conducted an independent and de novo
review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
In his objections, Mr. Davis reargues issues that he previously raised and
that the Recommendation adequately addressed. Those objections are due to be
overruled for the reasons provided in the Recommendation. For example, Mr.
Davis argues that the Recommendation mischaracterizes his double-jeopardy
argument, namely, that “it is Double Jeopardy to receive 2 separate enhanced
sentences for the same prior convictions.” (Doc. # 22, at 3.) Mr. Davis complains

that the “same prior felony convictions were used for enhancement purposes in
both[ ] the State and Federal sentencing proceedings, causing multiple punishments
for the same offenses.” (Doc. # 22, at 3.) Citing Eleventh Circuit authority, the
Recommendation explains why “[e]nhancement of Davis’s federal sentence using
convictions previously used to enhance his state sentence did not violate the
Double Jeopardy Clause” and that his counsel did not provide ineffective
assistance of counsel “by failing to argue a meritless issue.” (Doc. # 21, at 22); see
also Sudds v. Maggio, 696 F.2d 415 (5th Cir. 1983) (rejecting the argument that
under the Double Jeopardy Clause, “the same prior conviction cannot be used to
enhance two subsequent convictions” and concluding that there is “no logical
reason why it should be impermissible to use the same prior conviction to enhance
sentences on more than one subsequent conviction”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Mr. Davis’s objections (Doc. # 22) are
OVERRULED, that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 21) is
ADOPTED, and that the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is DENIED with prejudice.
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 9th day of September, 2014.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2