Washington v. USA

Filing 1

OPINION AND ORDER: Washington's motion pursuant to 28 USC 2255 is DENIED and DISMISSED. No certificate of appealability will issue. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 3/2/2012. (cc: Washington)(rmn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
COURTNEY WASHINGTON

)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:10 CR 128
(No. 2:12 CV 89)

OPINION and ORDER
Defendant/movant Courtney Washington has filed a motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 which he titles “Motion To Vacate An Absolute Void Judgment.” (DE
# 27.) He argues that his criminal judgment is void because this court had no subjectmatter jurisdiction over the criminal case against him.
A § 2255 motion allows a person in federal custody to attack his or her conviction
and sentence on constitutional grounds, because it is otherwise illegal, or because the
court that imposed it was without jurisdiction. RULE 4 of the RULES GOVERNING § 2255
PROCEEDINGS requires the court to promptly examine the motion. “If 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.” RULE 4(b), RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2255
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS.
Washington’s criminal judgment was entered after he entered into a written plea
agreement and pleaded guilty to a charge of having violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In
Washington’s written plea agreement, among other important terms, at paragraph 7(e),
he agreed:

I understand that the law gives a convicted person the right to appeal the
conviction and the sentence imposed; I also understand that no one can
predict the precise sentence that will be imposed, and that the Court has
jurisdiction and authority to impose any sentence within the statutory
maximum set for my offense as set forth in this plea agreement; with this
understanding and in consideration of the government’s entry into this
plea agreement, I expressly waive my right to appeal or to contest my conviction
and my sentence imposed or the manner in which my conviction or my sentence
was determined or imposed, to any Court on any ground, including any claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel unless the claimed ineffective assistance of
counsel relates directly to this waiver or its negotiation, including any
appeal under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742 or any postconviction proceeding, including but not limited to, a proceeding under Title
28, United States Code, Section 2255.
(DE # 14 at 4) (emphasis added.) Washington is not making a claim within the waiver’s
exclusion—that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in regard to the waiver
clause itself—so the waiver must be enforced, unless the plea agreement as a whole fails,
for example because his plea and/or the agreement was made involuntarily. Nunez v.
United States, 546 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Wenger, 58 F.3d 280, 282
(7th Cir. 1995).
Washington does not argue that his plea, plea agreement, or both, is/are invalid.
Instead, he argues that the entire proceeding was invalid, because the indictment against
him failed to properly allege “territorial jurisdiction;” that is, it charged him with
committing a crime in the State of Indiana, and Indiana has not ceded “territorial
jurisdiction”over crimes within its boundaries to the United States. This argument has
been described by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as so frivolous that it
does not require discussion. United States v. Banks-Giombetti, 245 F.3d 949, 953 (7th Cir.
2001). However, for defendant/movant Washington’s benefit, the court briefly explains.

2

The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to make laws regulating
interstate commerce, and Congress has used that power to make valid laws with respect
to firearms, involving conduct that appears anywhere within the territory of the United
States. See United States v. Groves, 470 F.3d 311, 326 (7th Cir. 2006). United States District
Courts have original jurisdiction over any indictment alleging a violation of the laws of
the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Therefore, this court had subject-matter jurisdiction
over Washington’s prosecution.
Because Washington has made no claims which impeach the validity of his plea
and/or his waiver of his right to file a § 2255 motion, nor an argument which shows that
this court lacked jurisdiction, it “plainly appears from the motion . . . and the record of
prior proceedings” that he is not entitled to relief, requiring the summary dismissal of
his § 2255 motion. RULE 4, RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2255 PROCEEDINGS FOR THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURTS. Accordingly, Washington’s motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(DE # 29) is summarily DENIED and DISMISSED. The clerk shall ENTER a FINAL
JUDGMENT dismissing the collateral civil proceeding (2:12 CV 89) with prejudice, and
give notice to defendant-movant Washington. For the reasons given herein, Washington
has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and no
certificate of appealability will issue.
SO ORDERED.
Date: March 2, 2012

s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT