Collins v. United States of America
Filing
3
OPINION: The Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct his Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (d/e 1 ) is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, the Court declines to grant a certificate of appealability. The Clerk will enter Judgment and terminate this case. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION.) Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 8/1/2018. (GL, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 01 August, 2018 08:50:27 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JAMES E. COLLINS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
Case No. 18-3126
OPINION
RICHARD MILLS, United States District Judge:
Petitioner James E. Collins has filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct his Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Upon reviewing the motion
and the record, the Court finds that no evidentiary hearing is needed and the
Petitioner is entitled to no relief.
At a final revocation hearing on October 5, 2017, based on a Grade A
violation and Criminal History Category of III, the Court determined that
Petitioner James Collins’s guideline range was 30 to 37 months. Upon admitting
to the manufacture and delivery of a controlled substance, James Collins was
sentenced to 30 months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons followed by two
years of supervised release. See United States v. James Collins, Case Number 9530078, Doc. No. 449. The Court ordered that the sentence be served consecutively
1
to any term imposed in Sangamon County Circuit Court, Case Number 2017-CF709. The Sangamon County case remains pending and is set for trial on August
20, 2018. The Petitioner is charged in that case with Manufacture/Delivery of a
Controlled Substance.
In his § 2255 motion, the Petitioner alleges the record shows that the actual
conduct by the Defendant was “mere possession.” He states that the individual
with whom he was arrested had arranged to sell the cocaine to a confidential
source. The Petitioner claims he did not engage in such conduct. The Petitioner
also questions whether the substance was actually a controlled substance.
The Petitioner also states that the transcript does not show that the Court
considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D), which directs courts to consider a
defendant’s “needed educational or vocational training, medical care or other
correctional treatment in the most effective manner.”
The Petitioner also claims that his conduct was a Class C violation and the
maximum sentence that could be imposed was two years.
The Petitioner’s claims are without merit. He admitted to the manufacture
and delivery of a controlled substance—at least that the Government could prove
the charge by a preponderance of the evidence--as alleged in the petition for
revocation, which is a Grade A violation. Consequently, the statutory maximum
was five years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
2
The Petitioner also asserts an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based
on his assertion that the offense was a Class C offense. Because it was a Grade A
violation, the Petitioner’s claim is without merit.
Even if there had been an error in calculating the guidelines, the Petitioner
would be entitled to no relief. “[S]entencing errors are generally not cognizable on
collateral review.” Hawkins v. United States, 706 F.3d 820, 826 (7th Cir. 2013).
“Relief under § 2255 is available only in extraordinary situations, such as an error
of constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude or where a fundamental defect has
occurred which results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” United States v.
Coleman, 763 F.3d 706, 708 (7th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“[A]bsent a fundamental miscarriage of justice, arguments based on the Sentencing
Guidelines must be raised on direct appeal or not at all.” Allen v. United States,
175 F.3d 560, 563 (7th Cir. 1999). “Purported errors in the calculation of the
Guidelines are the ordinary grist of the mill for direct appeals, and that would have
been the appropriate vehicle for any argument of that nature.” United States v.
George, 2012 WL 426741, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2012).
The Petitioner admitted that the Government could prove he committed a
Grade A violation. The offense with which he is charged is a Grade A violation,
not a Grade C violation. The sentence imposed by the Court did not exceed the
statutory maximum.
3
Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner is not entitled to relief under § 2255.
An appeal may be taken if the Court issues a certificate of appealability. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). The Court is unable to conclude that reasonable jurists
would find the Court’s assessment of the Petitioner’s section 2255 claims
debatable or wrong. Because the Petitioner has not “made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right,” see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court declines
to issue a certificate of appealability under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section
2255 Proceedings.
Ergo, the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct his Sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 [d/e 1] is DENIED.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, the
Court declines to grant a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk will enter Judgment and terminate this case.
ENTER: July 31, 2018
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ Richard Mills
Richard Mills
United States District Judge
4
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?