Hamilton v. USA

Filing 20

ORDER adopting in whole the R&R (Doc. 19 ) in this matter, including its reasoning. ORDERED dismissing with prejudice Ground One of the Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 4 ) as proced urally defaulted without cause or excuse, and denying Grounds Two and Three of the Motion on their merits. ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability, as jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the procedural ruling is correct as to Ground One; or whether the Court's assessment of the constitutional claims in Grounds Two and Three were debatable or wrong. FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close this matter. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 11/26/24. (EJA)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Anthony Wayne Hamilton,
Petitioner,

10
11

v.

12

United States of America,

13

Respondent.

No. CV-23-00713-PHX-JJT (JFM)
ORDER

14
15

Petitioner Anthony Wayne Hamilton has pending before this Court an Amended

16

Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 4).

17

At issue is that Motion and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19, “R&R”) entered by

18

United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf recommending that the Court dismiss

19

with prejudice, as procedurally defaulted, Ground One of the Motion and deny on their

20

merits Grounds Two and Three. In the R&R entered May 3, 2024, Judge Metcalf warned

21

the parties they had 14 days from service of the R&R to file any specific written objections

22

to any part of the R&R, and “failure to timely file objections to any findings or

23

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

24

de novo consideration of the issues, see United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

25

(9th Cir. 2003), and will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the

26

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the

27

magistrate judge, Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir, 2007).” (R&R at 21-

28

22.) Petitioner Hamilton did not file any objections within fourteen days of service of the

1

R&R nor in the subsequent six months since that deadline elapsed. The Court is entitled

2

therefore to adopt the R&R without further de novo consideration of the issues. It

3

nonetheless elects to evaluate those issues on their merits in light of the seriousness of their

4

consequences. Upon such evaluation, the Court concludes Judge Metcalf’s analysis and

5

conclusions are all supported by the applicable law.

6

Petitioner’s double jeopardy claim in Ground One of his Amended Petition is

7

procedurally defaulted as Petitioner did not raise it in his direct appeal, but rather raises it

8

for the first time in post-conviction proceedings. Bousley v. United States , 523 U.S., 614,

9

621 (1998), dictates this conclusion. Had the Court in any event reached the claim on its

10

underlying merits, the Court would have found it failed, because Petitioner was not

11

subjected to double jeopardy in the prosecution of the charges on which he went to trial.

12

And as Judge Metcalf exhaustively and clearly reasoned in the R&R (Doc. 19 at 7-9),

13

Petitioner is unable to show either cause for his failure to raise this issue on direct appeal,

14

nor prejudice–because, as stated, the argument would fail on the merits in any event.

15

Finally, Petitioner makes no showing of actual, factual innocence as required by Schlup v.

16

Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995).

17

Petitioner’s Ground Two fails on its merits. As the R&R correctly reasoned,

18

Petitioner was convicted of the completed form of Hobbs Act Robbery, not attempt or

19

conspiracy. The record makes clear that the jury instructions so provided. And completed

20

Hobbs Act Robbery is unequivocally a crime of violence for purposes of evaluating a

21

charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The Ninth Circuit spoke to this in Petitioner’s direct

22

appeal and it is the law and mandate of the case, which Petitioner cannot again challenge.

23

Moreover, for the reasons detailed in the R&R at pages 13-17, Hobbs Act Robbery is

24

divisible, and upon conducting the modified categorical analysis, the Court concludes the

25

jury convicted Petitioner of the completed version, which again is a crime of violence. The

26

Court must deny relief based on Ground Two.

27

Finally, Petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim in Ground Three also fails on its

28

merits, as there is no showing of deficient performance on the part of trial counsel. The

-2-

1

argument Petitioner urges here—that if properly advised, he could have argued an

2

intervening arrest had to occur between each of the eleven robberies for which he was

3

convicted before separate sentences were legally justified for each of his firearms

4

conviction counts—is simply wrong as a matter of law. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); 18 U.S.C.

5

§ 1951. Petitioner’s argument is therefore futile, and as Judge Metcalf pointed out, per

6

Rupe v. Wood, 93 F.3d 1434, 1445 (9th Cir. 1996), “the failure to take futile action can

7

never be deficient performance.”

8
9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED adopting in whole the R&R (Doc. 19) in this
matter, including its reasoning.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice Ground One of the

11

Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

12

(Doc. 4) as procedurally defaulted without cause or excuse, and denying Grounds Two and

13

Three of the Motion on their merits.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability, as jurists of

15

reason would not find it debatable whether the procedural ruling is correct as to Ground

16

One; or whether the Court’s assessment of the constitutional claims in Grounds Two and

17

Three were debatable or wrong.

18
19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment
accordingly and close this matter.
Dated this 26th day of November, 2024.

21
22

Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-