Watson v. United States Of America

Filing 2

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Tyreik Watson. Objections to R&R due by 4/27/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 4/13/17. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
TYREIK L. WATSON,

)

)

Movant,

)

)

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CV417-071
CR413-128

)

)

Respondent.

)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Guilty-plea convicted of distribution of cocaine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841, Tyreik Waston seeks to exploit the Supreme Court's
decision in Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S._, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016),'
to neutralize his enhanced sentence as a career offender under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 67. Preliminary § 2255 Rule 4 review shows that his
motion must be DENIED.
In his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Watson argues that his prior
convictions for serious drug offenses no longer qualify as ACCApredicates. Id. He further argues that his motion is timely-filed, as it

' Mathis elucidated the holding in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. -, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015), to explain how courts must divine whether a criminal defendant's prior
convictions counted as "violent felonies" under the Armed Career Criminal Act
(ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B).

has been filed within one year of the Supreme Court's decision in Mathis.

Id. at 9. Though he admits his appeal from his criminal conviction was
affirmed, see United States v. Watson, No. 14-10991 (11th Cir. Dec. 2,
2014) (mandate affirming judgment), Watson specifically denies that he
has previously filed any "petition, application, or motion with respect to
this judgment." Doc. 67 at 2.2 This perjurious statement, of course, is
later contradicted by his own admission that his first § 2255 motion was
denied as untimely. Id. at 9; see Watson v. United States, No. CV416-145.
And, despite that denial on the merits, Watson has not sought (or
received) permission from the Eleventh Circuit to return to this Court
for another bite at the § 2255 apple.
"Before a second or successive application permitted by this section
is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate
court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider
the application." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent that authorization,
this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear any argument already addressed "on
the merits." See Insignares v. Secv, Fla. Dept of Gorr., 755 F.3d 1273,

2

Notably, Watson did the exact same thing the last round. See doe. 52 at 2; doe. 59
(noting the discrepancy).
2

1278 (11th Cir. 2014); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000);

see also In re Rains, 659 F.3d 1274 1 1275 (10th Cir. 2011) (collecting
cases) (dismissal as time-barred is "on the merits," making any later
motion challenging the same conviction is successive and therefore
requiring authorization by the Circuit panel prior to filing in the district
court). The Court therefore "must dismiss [movant's] second or
successive petition, without awaiting any response from the
government," in lieu of waiting for movant to seek that authorization
himself. Smalls v. St. Lawrence, 2012 WL 1119766 at * 1 (S.D. Ga. Feb.
27, 2012).
Accordingly, Tyreik Watson's second § 2255 motion should be
DISMISSED as successive. Applying the Certificate of Appealability
(COA) standards set forth in Brown v. United States, 2009 WL 307872
at * 1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009), the Court discerns no COA-worthy
issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA should issue. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1); Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("The district court must issue or deny a
certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant.") (emphasis added).
3

This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district
judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this
Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file
written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all
parties. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendations." Any request for additional time to
file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the
assigned district judge.
After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The
district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and
recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are
advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of
rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing Corp.,

648

F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. U.S., 612 F. App'x 542, 545
(11th Cir. 2015).

SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this13th day of April,
2017.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

11