Holt v. USA
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, This Court DENIES the petitioner's § 2255 motion (Doc. 1);DISMISSES this action; DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 1/23/2017. (jdh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RACHAEL S. HOLT,
Petitioner,
vs.
Civil Case No. 16-cv-1136-JPG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Crim. Case No. 13-cr-40067-JPG
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Rachael S. Holt’s Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). A response from the Government is
not required by the Court. For the following reasons, the Court denies Holt’s motion.
I.
Background
On October 17, 2013, Holt pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846 and to two counts of possessing a listed
chemical knowing it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(c)(2). See United States v. Holt, Case No. 13-cr-40067-JPG (Doc. 36, 13-cr-40067-JPG). On
February 12, 2014, the Court sentenced Holt to 114 months of imprisonment, 4 years on supervised
release, a $300 special assessment, and a $300 fine1 (Doc. 47, 13-cr-40067-JPG). The Court found
that there were no aggravating or mitigating role adjustments (Docs. 44 & 53, 13-cr-40067-JPG). The
Court reduced Holt’s sentence of imprisonment to 91 months based on the retroactive application of
Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guideline Manual (“U.S.S.G.”).
The sole argument in petitioner’s § 2255 motion is that U.S.S.G. Amendment 794, which
became effective November 1, 2015, and amended the commentary and notes to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2
The 2013 United States Sentencing Guidelines, incorporating all guideline amendments, were used to
calculate defendant’s offense level and recommended sentencing range.
1
regarding the mitigating role reduction, should be applied retroactively to reduce her sentence.
II.
Analysis
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). No
evidentiary hearing has been conducted in this matter as the records and files clearly demonstrate that
the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
Amendment 794 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines became effective on November 1,
2015. Although Amendment 794 has been applied retroactively on direct appeal, it has not been held
retroactive on collateral review. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) (listing retroactive amendments); United
States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 521 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that Amendment 794 applies
retroactively in direct appeals, but declining to determine whether “a defendant who has exhausted his
direct appeal can move to reopen sentencing proceedings”). The petitioner has not cited to any
controlling case law that Amendment 794 applies retroactively on collateral review. As Amendment
794 is not retroactive on collateral review, it cannot provide a basis for relief under § 2255.2 The Court
properly used the sentencing guideline manual in effect on the date of the petitioner’s sentencing with
Should Amendment 794 become applicable on collateral review and have the effect of lowering the
petitioner’s sentencing guideline range, she may seek a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
2
Page 2 of 3
regard to the petitioner’s participation in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11.
III.
Certificate of Appealability
Having denied the petitioner’s motion, the Court must grant or deny a certificate of
appealability. See Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States
District Courts; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Section 2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate of appealability
may issue only if a petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
The petitioner has made no such showing. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the petitioner may not appeal the denial of a certificate of
appealability, but she may seek a certificate from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
IV.
Conclusion
Based on the above, this Court:
DENIES the petitioner’s § 2255 motion (Doc. 1);
DISMISSES this action;
DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and
DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 23, 2017
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 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?