Beard-Hawkins v. USA

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING 11 MOTION for Leave to Amend Section 2255 Petition filed by Delenthegia "Del" Beard-Hawkins; 12 MOTION for Consideration of the Application of Amendment 794 filed by Delenthegia "Del" Beard-Hawkins. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 4/17/2018. (ceh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DELENTHEGIA BEARD-HAWKINS,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 17-cv-1058-DRH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER
HERDON, District Judge:
Now

before

the

Court

is

petitioner

Delenthegia

Beard-Hawkins’

(“petitioner”) Motion for Leave to Amend her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition by Adding
Ground for Sentence Reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (doc. 11);
Motion for Consideration of the Application of Amendment 794 (doc 12). The
Court DENIES the motions.
Recently, on March 26, 2018, petitioner filed a similar (in parts, identical)
motion for sentence reduction and application of Amendment 794 in her
underlying criminal case, USA v. Bradford, et al., 3:15-cr-30001-DRH-2. Crim.
case doc. 332 1.

There, the Court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

Crim. case doc. 333. In its Order, the Court noted, without ruling on the merits
of the motion to reduce sentence, that “if petitioner Hawkins wishes to pursue her

1

Citations to petitioner’s criminal case will be annotated, “crim. case” followed by the docket
number. Citations to “doc.” followed by a number, indicates a citation to the present civil section
2255 case.

1

arguments . . . a nd has a good faith reason for disregarding the terms of her

plea agreement , she should file a motion seeking to supplement her section 2255
petition.”

Id. at pgs. 3-4 (emphasis added).

It appears that petitioner has

followed the Court’s instruction that a supplement to her section 2255 petition
may be the proper channel for her argument, however she has failed to follow the
Court’s directive to demonstrate a good faith basis for the filing.
In her motion to supplement, petitioner urges the Court to consider case
law which holds that “a guilty plea by itself, does not bar a federal criminal
defendant from challenging the constitutionality of his statue of conviction or
district appeal or a collateral action such as a 2255.” Doc. 11. While that may be
true, petitioner remains suspiciously silent regarding her Plea Agreement, which
contains a waiver of the right to appeal or file a collateral attack. See crim. case
doc. 124, p. 10 (“Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to contest
any aspect of the conviction and sentence, including the manner in which the
sentence was determined or imposed, that could be contested under Title 18 or
Tile 28, or under any other provision of federal law[.]”). Petitioner was directed
pointedly by this Court to show a good faith reason to disregard the terms of her
plea agreement, and she plainly has not.
It is abundantly clear that if petitioner is trying to fashion an argument to
circumvent her plea agreement (see crim. case doc. 124, p. 11: waiver of right to
appeal or bring collateral challenges not applicable to appeals based upon
Sentencing Guideline amendments made retroactive by the U.S. Sentencing

2

Commission), she misses the mark.

In her motion, petitioner cites solely to

Fourth and Sixth Circuit case law regarding Amendment 794 to U.S.S.G. 3B1.2,
which took effect on November 1, 2015.

Petitioner was sentenced some one year

and four months after the amendment took place.

See crim. case doc. 301.

There simply is no argument to be made in good faith regarding sentence
reduction under Amendment 794 that can stand in light of petitioner’s waiver
contained in her plea agreement. For these reasons, her motions (doc. 11; doc.
12) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.04.17
14:50:59 -05'00'
United States District Judge

3