Durham v. USA
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court DISMISSES Durhams §2255 motion (Doc. 1) and DIRECTS the clerks of court to enter judgement accordingly. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 7/9/2015. (jdh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBERT MARK DURHAM,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil No. 15-cv-220-JPG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Criminal No. 02-cr-40053-JPG
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Robert Mark Durham’s motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255. (Doc. 1). In response to the
petitioner’s motion, the Court ordered the petitioner to show cause. Durham needed to show why
the motion should not be dismissed because it is not filed in a timely manner and is not within the
jurisdictional scope of the Court. The petitioner responded to the order (Doc. 3) and the
government asked the Court to vacate. (Doc. 7).
On June 9, 2004, petitioner Robert Mark Durham pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to
manufacture 500 grams or more of methamphetamine; one count of manufacturing 50 grams or
more of methamphetamine; and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking
crime. (02-cr-40053-JPG, Doc. 385). He was sentenced to serve 228 months in jail and ordered to
forfeit “property used or intended to be used to facilitate the offense . . . [and] any other property
(substitute assets) of the Defendant up to the value of any property described above.”
(02-cr-40053-JPG, Doc. 383).
After an unsuccessful direct appeal the petitioner moved to reduce the amount forfeited under
the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). (02-cr-40053-JPG, Doc. 523). The Court rejected
the motion noting the plea agreement allowed the forfeiture of “other property as substitute
assets,” a challenge to the forfeiture must proceed on appeal, and Durham’s 41(g) motion was
actually “an improper attempt to challenge a component of his sentence.” (02-cr-40053-JPG, Doc.
530, citing Young v. United States, 498 F.3d 313, 315 (7th Cir. 2007)).
Now the Defendant, with his 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion, again challenges the forfeited assets
through four claims of ineffective counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
Counsel failed to investigate petitioner’s legitimate business and employment
records, including payments into retirement plan, prior to the petitioner’s
involvement in the conspiracy;
Counsel failed to distinguish between pre- and post- Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform
Act (CAFRA) assets to support an ex post facto argument regarding forfeitures;
Counsel failed to argue that the petitioner’s forfeited assets were not apportioned
properly, which allowed improper forfeiture of pre-conspiracy assets; and
Counsel failed to argue the petitioner should not be responsible for the entire
forfeiture amount.
(Doc. 1)
The task at hand is to determine whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear such a claim, and
if the petitioner filed the motion in a timely manner.
To obtain relief under a §2255 motion the petitioner must claim the “right to be released.”
28 U.S.C. §2255 (2008). The petitioner must also demonstrate that the alleged error in the plea
agreement or sentencing was “jurisdictional, constitutional, or is a fundamental defect which
inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Oliver v. United States, 961 F.2d 1339,
1341 (7th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the defect of justice being challenged by a §2255 motion must
directly relate to a custodial aspect of the petitioner’s sentence.
The petitioner’s case is similar to Barnickel v. United States, 113 F.3d 704, (7th Cir. 1997).
In Barnickel, the defendant filed a §2255 and as the court noted, “attack[ed] only the restitution
part of her sentence.” Id. at 705. The court found this §2255 motion lacked a jurisdictional or
constitutional defect, as it did not claim the “right to be released. Id. at 706, (citing Smullen v.
United States, 94 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 1996)). A challenge to restitution does not satisfy the requisite
2
“right to be released” aspect of a §2255, as a challenge to restitution does not directly relate to the
custody of the defendant’s sentence. Therefore, the court held a §2255 motion “is not available to
challenge an order of restitution imposed as part of a criminal sentence.” Barnickel, 113 F.3d at
706.
In the case at bar, the only defect of justice being challenged by the petitioner’s §2255 motion
is the amount of assets forfeited. Durham’s petition, like the §2255 challenge to restitution in
Barnickel, strictly deals with a noncustodial issue. Just as the challenge to restitution in Barnickel
did not “rise to the level of a constitutional violation,” neither does Durham’s claim against the
forfeited assets. Barnickel, 113 F.3d at 706. A claim against forfeited assets is not a “fundamental
defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Belford v. United States, 975
F.2d 310, 313 (7th Cir. 1992). If the defect of justice challenged by the §2255 motion does not
directly relate to a custodial aspect of the petitioner’s sentence, he cannot satisfy the requisite
“right to be released” claim. Barnickel, 113 F.3d at 706, (citing Smullen v. United States, 94 F.3d
20 (1st Cir. 1996)). A claim required by §2255 itself. Id. Therefore, a §2255 motion is not
available to challenge forfeited assets imposed as part of a plea agreement.
In summary, this Court holds it does not have the jurisdiction to hear the petitioner’s motion
for collateral relief. He has failed to challenge a custodial aspect of his sentence. Because of
this, it is unnecessary for this Court to address whether the petition was filed in a timely manner.
For these reasons this Court DISMISSES Durham’s §2255 motion (Doc. 1) and DIRECTS
the clerks of court to enter judgement accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 9, 2015
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?