Lewis v. USA

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ORDERS the Government to file a response to Lewis petition by August 22, 2014. The Government shall, as part of its response, attach all relevant portions of the record. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 7/24/2014. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
VICTORIA LEWIS,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No. 14-cv-667-JPG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Victoria Lewis’ motion to vacate, set aside
or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 2). For the following reasons, Lewis’
motion survives this threshold review and the Court orders the government to file its response.

In her criminal proceedings before this Court, Lewis’ indictment charged her with
possession of a listed chemical knowing it would be used to manufacture a controlled substance
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2). See United States v. Lewis, Case No. 11-40045 (Doc. 1).
Ultimately, Lewis and the government entered into a written plea agreement which provided in
pertinent part as follows:
Defendant and the Government agree that based upon substantial assistance
rendered through the complete and total cooperation of Defendant, the
Government may, in the sole discretion of the United States Attorney, file either a
motion under § 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines or a motion under Rule 35 of
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure advising the Court of a recommended
reduction in sentence. The Motion, if any, will only be filed if the assistance
rendered by the Defendant is found to be complete and thoroughly truthful,
regardless of the outcome of any trial or hearing at which the Defendant may
testify. The Defendant understands that any reduction of sentence, and the extent
of that reduction, lies in the discretion of the Court.
(Doc. 24 in criminal case). Pursuant to this plea agreement, Lewis pleaded guilty to the charge
in the indictment (Doc. 23 in criminal case). The undersigned Judge sentenced Lewis to 120

months imprisonment, three years supervised release, a $100 special assessment, and a $200 fine
(Doc. 30 in criminal case). Judgment was entered on January 13, 2012 (Doc. 30 in criminal
case). Lewis did not appeal her sentence or conviction. Lewis now files a motion pursuant to
§ 2255 arguing the government breached the plea agreement and discriminated against her
because of her disability when it refused to file a Rule 35 motion after her substantial assistance.
The Court must grant a § 2255 motion when a defendant’s “sentence was imposed in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, “[h]abeas
corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for extraordinary situations.” Prewitt v. United
States, 83 F.3d 812, 816 (7th Cir. 1996). “Relief under § 2255 is available only for errors of
constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude, or where the error represents a fundamental defect which
inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Kelly v. United States, 29 F.3d 1107, 1112
(7th Cir. 1994) (quotations omitted). It is proper to deny a § 2255 motion without an evidentiary
hearing if “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively demonstrate that the prisoner
is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); see Sandoval v. United States, 574 F.3d 847, 850 (7th
Cir. 2009).
The Government, within its discretion may file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 35(b) requesting the sentencing court to reduce a defendant’s sentence upon the
defendant’s “substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person.” “The
government doesn’t have to reward criminals who cooperate with it with a lighter sentence.” United
States v. Richardson, 558 F.3d 680, 682 (7th Cir. 2009). However, “[f]ederal district courts have
authority to review a prosecutor’s refusal to file a substantial-assistance motion and to grant a remedy
if they find that the refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive.” Wade v. United States, 504
U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992); see also Richardson, 558 F.3d at 681-82. Wade set forth two limitations on
a prosecutor’s discretion to file a Rule 35 motion: (1) “the prosecutor’s decision must have some

2 

rational relationship to a legitimate government interest”; and (2) “the decision may not be based on
an unconstitutional motive, such as race or religion.” United States v. Wilson, 390 F.3d 1003 (7th
Cir. 2004) (citing Wade, 504 U.S. at 185-86).

Here, Lewis alleges the government’s failure to file a Rule 35 motion as contemplated by
the plea agreement was based on an unconstitutional motive to the extent it based its decision on
her disability. Specifically, the government’s reason for failing to file a Rule 35 motion was
because Lewis provided inconsistent statements in the course of cooperation. Lewis, however,
contends that any inconsistent statements were a result of her disability. Accordingly, Lewis
alleges defects of constitutional magnitude appropriate in a § 2255 petition. Without
commenting on the merits of Lewis’ arguments, the Court concludes that the petition survives
preliminary review under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the
United States District Courts.
The Court ORDERS the Government to file a response to Lewis’ petition by August 22,
2014. The Government shall, as part of its response, attach all relevant portions of the record.
Lewis may file a reply brief (no longer than 5 pages) by September 5, 2014. If review of the
briefs indicates that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the court will set the hearing by separate
notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 24, 2014

s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

3