Wilson v. United States of America

Filing 92

ORDER denying 85 Motion to expand record; denying 86 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 87 Motion to expand record; denying 88 Motion to expand record; denying 89 Motion to expand record; denying 90 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency; denying 91 Motion to expand record. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 9/7/2017. (GAG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
FREDDIE WILSON
v.

Case No: 8:15-cv-2801 T-24 TGW
8:13-cr-207 T-24TGW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
_________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on the following seven motions followed by pro se
Petitioner Freddie Wilson: 1) motion to expand the record to include Petitioner’s notice of
complaint that was filed with the Office of the Inspector General (Civ. Doc. 85); 2) motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s denial of Petitioner’s request to reopen his § 2255 proceedings (Civ.
Doc. 86); 3) motion to expand the record to include examples of the fraud committed by federal
officers (Civ. Doc. 87); 4) motion to expand the record to include the holding and ruling in Fuller
v. Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 851 F.2d 1307 (11th Cir. 1988) (Civ. Doc. 88);
5) motion to expand the record to include a Florida Sentinel Bulletin article (Civ. Doc. 89); 6)
motion for permission to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 90); and 7) motion to expand the record
to include the holding in United States v. Stein, 846 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2017) (Civ. Doc. 91).
Upon consideration, each of Petitioner’s motions are DENIED.
Petitioner was convicted by a jury of six counts of theft of government property, five counts
of aggravated identity theft, one count of conducting an unlawful monetary transaction, and one
count of obstruction and sentenced to 102 months’ imprisonment. (Crim. Doc. 84). Petitioner’s
conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. (Crim. Doc. 130). Petitioner’s amended motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence was filed on December 16,
2015. (Civ. Doc. 5). In his § 2255 motion, Petitioner argued that (1) his Sixth Amendment right to
1

a jury trial was violated because a jury did not decide his guilt on uncharged counts, (2) the Court
incorrectly calculated his loss at sentencing, incorrectly applied the Sentencing Guidelines, and
incorrectly reached the amount of restitution he is ordered to pay; (3) he received ineffective
assistance of counsel; and (4) his Eighth Amendment rights were violated because he is innocent
of the crimes charged in this case. (Civ. Doc. 5). On July 11, 2016, this Court denied Petitioner’s
§ 2255 motion, finding that each of Petitioner’s claims were either previously decided against him
by the Eleventh Circuit, had been procedurally defaulted, lacked merit, or were not a cognizable
ground for relief in a § 2255 motion. (Civ. Doc. 52). Judgment was entered in favor of the
Government on July 12, 2016. (Civ. Doc. 52.).
I.

Motions to Expand the Record

The Court first addresses Petitioner’s five motions to expand the record. Rule 7(a) of the
Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the United States District Courts states as follows:
Rule 7. Expanding the Record
(a) In General. If the motion is not dismissed, the judge
may direct the parties to expand the record by submitting additional
materials relating to the motion. The judge may require that these
materials be authenticated.
(b) Types of Materials. The materials that may be required
include letters predating the filing of the motion, documents,
exhibits, and answers under oath to written interrogatories
propounded by the judge. Affidavits also may be submitted and
considered as part of the record.
Expanding the record is fully within the discretion of the district court and is unnecessary when
the record is sufficient to determine the merits of the case. See Prada v. United States, No. 1611704, 2017 WL 2210892, at *2 (11th Cir. May 19, 2017).
Petitioner first moves to expand the record to include a complaint Petitioner purportedly
filed with the Office of the Inspector General. (Doc. 85). To the extent the Court can understand
2

Petitioner’s argument, it appears he filed a complaint against Christian Daley of the IRS and AUSA
Josephine Thomas alleging that the Government fabricated evidence against Petitioner in his
criminal case relating to the amount of loss for which Petitioner was held accountable for at
sentencing. But Petitioner is not entitled to this relief. This Court, as well as the Eleventh Circuit,
have rejected Petitioner’s arguments concerning the amount of loss for which he was held
accountable at sentencing. Here, Petitioner simply seeks to raise this argument once again.
Moreover, Petitioner has failed to attach the complaint he allegedly filed with the Office of the
Inspector General. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion to expand the record to
include this complaint (Civ. Doc. 85). For the same reasons, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion
to expand the record to include examples of the fraud committed by federal officers (Civ. Doc.
87).
Petitioner also seeks to expand the record to include a Florida Sentinel Bulletin article
regarding an individual who was sentenced to a six year, two and one-half month prison sentence
for theft of government funds, possession of 15 or more unauthorized access devices, use of
unauthorized access devices, aggravated identify theft, and false claims. (Civ. Doc. 89). Petitioner
claims that this article shows sentencing disparities between that individual and Petitioner. But, as
explained above, Petitioner’s sentence has been affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit, and his
arguments regarding his sentencing have already been raised and rejected by this Court.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to expand the record to include the Florida Sentinel Bulletin
article (Civ. Doc. 89) is denied.
Lastly, Petitioner files two motions to expand the record to include the holding in two
different Eleventh Circuit cases. (Civ. Docs. 88 and 91). Again, Petitioner improperly argues in
each of these motions that these cases support his position regarding the amount of loss for which

3

he was held accountable at sentencing. Moreover, it is not proper for the Court to expand the record
to include case law. Accordingly, these motions to expand the record (Civ. Docs. 88 and 91) are
denied.
II.

Motion for Reconsideration

Next, the Court addresses Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of
Petitioner’s request to reopen his § 2255 proceedings (Civ. Doc. 86). On August 1, 2017, the Court
denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen his § 2255 proceedings pursuant to Rule 60(b), in which
Petitioner appeared to take issue with the amount of loss the Court applied at sentencing. (Civ.
Doc. 80). In that order, the Court stated that this argument has already been rejected by this Court
and the Eleventh Circuit. (Civ. Doc. 80). Because a Rule 60(b) motion is not a vehicle for rearguing
claims already raised in Petitioner’s § 2255 motion or other pleadings, the Court denied
Petitioner’s motion to reopen. (Civ. Doc. 80).
Petitioner now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his motion to reopen.
Reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality
and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Baskin v. United States, No. 10-1721, 2011 WL
4953041, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2011) (quoting Int’l Union of Painters v. Argyros, No. 05-1661,
2007 WL 1577840, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2007)). “A motion for reconsideration does not
provide an opportunity to simply reargue—or argue for the first time—an issue the Court has once
determined.” Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., No. 8:07CV00690-T17MSS, 2008 WL 4372847, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2008) (citation omitted).
To the extent the Court can understand Petitioner’s argument, it appears he is asserting the
Government increased the amount of loss for which the Petitioner was held accountable for at
sentencing by committing fraud on the Court and perjury. Again, Petitioner’s argument regarding

4

the amount of loss has been addressed by this Court and the Eleventh Circuit. There has been no
factual or legal change in the basis upon which Petitioner’s motion to reopen his § 2255
proceedings was denied. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Civ. Doc. 86) is
denied.
III.

Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis

Lastly, Petitioner seeks leave from this Court to appeal in forma pauperis. (Civ. Doc. 90).
Petitioner has already sought this relief numerous times, and the Court has rejected it each time.
(Civ. Docs. 47, 63, and 84). For the same reasons set forth in its prior orders, the Court denies
Petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (Civ. Doc. 90).
IV.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the following motions are
DENIED:
1) Motion to expand the record to include Petitioner’s notice of complaint that was
filed with the Office of the Inspector general (Civ. Doc. 85);
2) Motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of Petitioner’s request to
reopen his § 2255 proceedings (Civ. Doc. 86);
3) Motion to expand the record to include examples of the fraud committed by
federal officers (Civ. Doc. 87);
4) Motion to expand the record to include the holding and ruling in Fuller v.
Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 851 F.2d 1307 (11th Cir. 1988)
(Civ. Doc. 88);
5) Motion to expand the record to include a Florida Sentinel Bulletin article (Civ.
Doc. 89);
6) Motion for permission to appeal in forma pauperis (Civ. Doc. 90); and
7) Motion to expand the record to include the holding in United States v. Stein,
846 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2017) (Civ. Doc. 91).

5

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 7th day of September, 2017.

Copies to:
Pro Se Petitioner

6