Reynolds v. USA

Filing 2

ORDER DENYING 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255), DISMISSING CASE and DECLINING to issue certificate of appealability. Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 12/5/16. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARMONEQUETTE REYNOLDS,
Petitioner,
vs.

No. 3:16-cv-01267-DRH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
AMENDED ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on petitioner Charmonequette Reynolds’
motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc.
1). Under Rule 4(b) of the RULES GOVERNING § 2255 PROCEEDINGS IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS, a judge receiving a § 2255 motion must
conduct a preliminary review and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion, any
attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not
entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify
the moving party.” A preliminary review of the petition shows that it must be
dismissed.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner pleaded guilty, with the benefit of a written plea agreement, to a
three-count indictment charging her with conspiracy to interfere with interstate
commerce by robbery, interference with interstate commerce by robbery, and
carry and use of a firearm during a crime of violence. On February 13, 2015,
petitioner was sentenced to a term of 68 months’ imprisonment. Judgment was
entered on February 17, 2015. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal. Accordingly,
petitioner’s judgment of conviction became final 14 days later, on March 3, 2015,
when the time for filing an appeal expired.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A petitioner may avail herself of § 2255 relief only if she can show that there
are “flaws in the conviction or sentence which are jurisdictional in nature,
constitutional in magnitude or result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Boyer

v. United States, 55 F.2d 296, 298 (7th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 268
(1995). Section 2255 is limited to correcting errors that “vitiate the sentencing
court's jurisdiction or are otherwise of constitutional magnitude.” Guinan v.

United States, 6 F.3d 468, 470 (7th Cir. 1993), citing Scott v. United States, 997
F.2d 340 (7th Cir. 1993). A § 2255 motion is not, however, a substitute for a
direct appeal. Doe v. United States, 51 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 1995), cert.

denied, 116 S.Ct. 205 (1995); McCleese v. United States, 75 F.3d 1174, 1177 (7th
Cir. 1996). Additionally, errors in the application of the sentencing guidelines

cannot be raised in 2255 motions as long as a defendant’s sentence is within the
range provided by the statute of offense. United States v. Wisch, 275 F.3d 620,
625 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that sentencing guideline calculation errors are
nonconstitutional and are therefore not reviewable in 2255 proceedings.)
ANALYSIS
Petitioner contends she is entitled to a “minor role” reduction based on a
recent amendment to the advisory federal sentencing guidelines manual.
Specifically, defendant relies on Amendment 794 which amended § 3B1.2 of the
United States Sentencing Guidelines and took effect on November 1, 2015 (after
petitioner’s conviction became final). Additionally, defendant relies on United

States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying Amendment 794
retroactively on direct appeal to a defendant who argued at sentencing, prior to
the amendment, for the minor role reduction).
The Court sentenced the petitioner in February 2015 - before Amendment
794 became effective on November 1, 2015. The petitioner has not shown (and
the Court is not aware of) any controlling authority indicating that Amendment
794 has been made retroactive to cases on collateral review. Section 1B1.10 lists
all Guidelines amendments that the Sentencing Commission has made
retroactively applicable to defendants on collateral review, rather than direct
appeal. Amendment 794 is not listed in § 1B1.10 as retroactively applicable.

Petitioner’s reliance on Quintero-Leyva does not alter this result. First,

Quintero-Leyva is not controlling precedent in this circuit. Second, QuinteroLeyva is distinct from defendant’s case. In Quintero-Leyva the Ninth Circuit
concluded Amendment 794 applies retroactively to direct appeals because it
“resolved a circuit split and was intended as a clarifying amendment.” QuinteroLeyva 823 F.3d at 523. Petitioner did not directly appeal her conviction or
sentence. Accordingly, Quintero-Leyva is inapplicable.
Petitioner has not shown that her sentence was “imposed in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without
jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the
maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28
U.S.C. § 2255. Thus, the Court rejects the petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255
petition/motion. Finally, the Court notes that letting petitioner’s conviction and
sentence stand would not result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Murray

v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495 (1986).
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
To obtain a certificate of appealability, a petitioner must make “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C § 2253(c)(2).
The petitioner must also show that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,
for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different

manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further.’ ” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Here, the claims are based on an erroneous interpretation of the holding in

Quintero-Leyva as well as the applicability of Amendment 794. The Court finds
that reasonable jurists would not debate that the petition does not present a valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right, or that this Court is barred from
reviewing the merits of petitioner's claim. Reasonable jurists could not debate that
the petition should have been resolved in a different manner. Therefore, the Court
declines to certify any issues for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or
correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) is DENIED. The Court
DISMISSES with prejudice this cause of action. The Court ORDERS the Clerk of
the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same. Further, the Court DECLINES to
issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 5th day of December, 2016.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2016.12.05
16:23:19 -06'00'
United States District Judge