Jenkins v. USA

Filing 124

ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 123 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 7/1/2021. (arm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTWON DESHANE JENKINS,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-cv-610-DWD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
On November 25, 2020, this Court denied
section 2255 petition related to his cocaine conviction in Case No. 13-cr-30125 and
declined to issue a certificate of appealability (Doc. 94). On December 8, 2020, Petitioner
filed his Notice of Appeal of this denial with the Seventh Circuit (Doc. 95). The appeal is
still pending. On May 26, 2021, this Court de
Release (Doc. 122).
Now before the Court is Pe

consideration (Doc. 123).

Petitioner asks the Court to reconsider its May 26, 2021 Order denying Petitioner
emergency release. Petitioner represents that he meets all of the factors in 18 U.S.C. §
3143(b) and should be released pending the resolution of his appeal in this matter, in
addition to the resolution of his § 2255 proceedings in Jenkins v. United States, 20-cv-233SMY (S.D. Ill), where he is currently challenging his 293-month sentence for his

1

kidnapping conviction. The briefing on this separate 2255 petition is to be completed on
or about July 26, 2021. Jenkins v. United States, 20-cv-233-SMY (S.D. Ill), at Doc. 27.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly recognize motions to
reconsider. 1
action and to revise it at any point before
the entry of judgment as justice requires. F ED. R. CIV. PROC. 54(b); see also Moses H. Cone
, 460 U.S. 1, 12 (1983) (noting

manifest errors of law or fact or

Caisse Nationale

de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations

the losing party. It is the wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize
Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal
quotations and citation omitted). Because the standards for reconsideration are exacting,
the Seventh Circuit has stressed that appropriate issues for reconsider
Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990) (internal
quotations and citation omitted).

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure also do not expressly recognize motions to reconsider, but the
United States Supreme Court has held that such moti
exist in criminal prosecutions despite their om
United States
v. Rollins, 607 F.3d 500, 502 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 77 (1964)).
1

2

In his Motion, Petitioner presents many of the same arguments as in his original
motion, including that he is no longer a danger to the community and has raised a
substantial question of law that likely result in the reversal of his conviction or a new trial
(Doc. 123, p. 1). Petitioner again cites to the packet of documents he submitted with his
original motion.

These documents include letters from prison staff, community

members, and a potential employer, in addition to his prison records indicating that he
has had no infractions, certificates from programs he completed while incarcerated, and
his BOP Risk Assessment representing that he is a low risk inmate. Jenkins also presents
his medical records showing that he has contracted Covid-19 and further argues that the
continued risk of Covid-19 in the prison supports his release. Finally, Petitioner argues
that he has raised a substantial question in this matter and his pending § 2255 proceedings
in Jenkins v. United States, 20-cv-233-SMY (S.D. Ill).
As Petitioner repeats the same arguments he presented in his original motion, they
are not appropriate for a motion to reconsider. Moreover, even if these arguments were

and Jenkins cannot satisfy the terms of 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1) so to justify his release. 2 As
r, Petitioner was sentenced to 27 months
imprisonment for his cocaine conviction, which is to run consecutively to his 293-month
sentence in Case No. 12-cr-30239

kidnapping verdict in Case

2Assuming

such factors were applicable to his release in this first place. See Cherek v. United States, 767 F.2d
335, 337 (7th Cir. 1985) (18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1) is generally not applicable to convicted defendants seeking
postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Instead, habeas corpus and section 2255 petitioners rely on
Id.; see also
Kramer v. Jenkins, 800 F.2d 708, 708 (7th Cir. 1986).

3

No. 12-cr-30239 is particularly callous. Accordingly, Petiti
not pose a danger to any person is not clear and convincing evidence given his especially
violent past.

Even if Petitioner could meet the hurdle that he is not likely to pose a risk

of safety to others, he would not be able to clear the second factor that his appeal or his
pending § 2255 proceedings in 20-cv-233-SMY, present a substantial question of law or
fact so to justify his release.
eration (Doc. 123) is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 1, 2021

______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge

4