Harlie v. United States of America
ORDER denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration re 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255). Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 08/08/2017. (thb)
(Formerly CR 614-020)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
On July 28,
Petitioner Chrystal Harlie filed a
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence under 28
The United States Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation on November 3, 2016, recommending
dismissal of the § 2255 petition as untimely; it was filed 625
days too late.
Thus, her claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel and miscalculation of her guideline range were not
a clarifying amendment to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines, offered no relief to her because it was
not a retroactive new rule of law.
Judge recommended denying the issuance of a Certificate of
Harlie did not object to the Report and Recommendation,
and it was adopted by this Court in its entirety on November
The Court notes,
that Harlie had filed a
motion for permission to supplement her § 2255 motion and to
extend the time to object to Report and Recommendation three
days prior to entry of the Adoption Order.
objections to the Report and Recommendation on the same day
that the Adoption Order was entered.
Adoption Order dismissing this case,1 Harlie filed the instant
ineffective assistance of counsel and continues to argue that
she is entitled to relief under Amendment 794, which sets out
new guidelines for the determination of whether a defendant
should be granted a mitigating role reduction under U.S.S.G.
The Court may grant a party relief from a final judgment
under Rule 60(b) for "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Here, Harlie contends that
her failure to timely file her § 2255 petition is excusable
The Adoption Order was returned to this Court as
undeliverable because of an incorrect post office address.
the Clerk resent the Adoption Order to
Harlie at her present place of incarceration in West Virginia.
Thus, the Court believes that Harlie did not receive the
Adoption Order until early January 2017.
advise her about post-conviction matters,
year statute of
including the one-
that ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be used as cause
Golston v. Attorney Gen,
of Sate of Ala.,
constitutional right to counsel and therefore is not "cause"
untimely filing, the dismissal of the § 2255 petition remains
claim under Amendment
and in this present motion,
Court reiterates that Amendment 794 offers her no relief.
thoroughly explained its reasoning
2017, when it denied Harlie's motion to reduce
(See United States v. Harlie,
CR 614-020, Doc.
reconsideration that this Court did not rule on the propriety
of issuing a Certificate of Appealability in its Adoption
denied the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability when it
adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety since
Lest there be any confusion, however, Harlie
has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right; therefore,
this Court will not issue a
Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (1) (B) .
Upon the foregoing, Harlie's motion for reconsideration
8) is hereby DENIED.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this
UNITED/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
lERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?