Crow v. United States of America

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION-The court hereby ADOPTS and APPROVES the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the court. The motion to vacate is due to be denied. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 8/9/2012. (AVC)

FILED
2012 Aug-09 PM 02:14
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD DOYLE CROW,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Case No.:

2:12-cv-8008-RDP-RRA
2:06-cr-0514-RDP-RRA

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation recommending that the
§ 2255 Motion to Vacate be denied. No objections have been filed. The court has
considered the entire file in this action, together with the Report and Recommendation, and
has reached an independent conclusion that the Report and Recommendation is due to be
adopted and approved.
Accordingly, the court hereby ADOPTS and APPROVES the findings and
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the court.1 The
1

The court notes that Defendant avers that he is actually innocent and that this defense
precludes application of the 1-year statute of limitation to his § 2255 motion. That argument
misses the mark. Under federal law, a defendant cannot assert actual innocence by arguing
that the perceived minor in his case was a private citizen, rather than a law enforcement
officer. Federal law does not require there to be an actual minor victim to sustain a
conviction for attempt under §§ 2251, 2422, and 1470; rather, the law requires only that the
defendant believe a minor is involved. United States v. Norrell, 437 Fed.Appx. 881, 883
(11th Cir. 2011). Further, other circuits have drawn no distinction between stings conducted
by law enforcement officers and similar operations conducted by private citizens, see United
States v. Morris, 549 F.3d 548, 550 (7th Cir. 2008) (“The reported cases all involve law
enforcement officers posing as minors, whereas the initial girl impersonator in ths case was
a private citizen. But we cannot see what difference that could make.”), and the court finds
those decisions persuasive.

motion to vacate is due to be denied. An appropriate order will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this

9th

day of August, 2012.

___________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2