Garrett v. USA

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Garretts § 2255 motion (Doc. 1 ). The Court DISMISSES Garretts motion (Doc. 1) for lack of jurisdiction and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 12/5/13. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BRYAN SCOTT GARRETT,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No. 13-cv-1241-JPG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Bryan Scott Garrett’s motion pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). In April 2001, a jury found Garrett guilty of (1) Count One conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine; (2) Count Two – being a felon in possession of a
firearm; (3) Count Three – possession of materials used to manufacture methamphetamine; and
(4) Count Four – maintaining a place to manufacture methamphetamine. See United States v.
Garrett, Case No. 00-cr-40013-JPG, Docs. 202, 204-06. The undersigned judge sentenced
Garrett to a total term of 432 months imprisonment as follows: 432 months on Count One, 120
months on Count Two, and 240 months on Counts Three and Four, all counts to run concurrent
with each other. Doc. 229 in criminal case.
Garrett now seeks relief from his sentence, arguing that Descamps v. United States, 133
S. Ct. 2276 (2013) applies to his case. This is not Garrett’s first attempt to obtain relief from his
sentence. The Court has previously denied Garrett’s § 2255 motions and a petition for writ of
error coram nobis. See Garrett v. United States, Case No. 12-cv-859-JPG; Garrett v. United
States, Case No. 06-cv-266-JPG; Garrett v. United States, Case No. 03-cv-4118-JPG. As the
Court previously instructed Garrett, this Court cannot consider his successive § 2255 motion
unless the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals certifies it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ¶ 8. Curry

v. United States, 507 F.3d 603, 604 (7th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2925 (2008); Nunez
v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). The Court of Appeals has not made such a
certification. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Garrett’s § 2255 motion
(Doc. 1). The Court DISMISSES Garrett’s motion (Doc. 1) for lack of jurisdiction and
DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 5, 2013
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2