Smith v. USA

Filing 1

OPINION AND ORDER: Court DENIES Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255). Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 7/12/2018. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (tc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
IKEDIA SMITH,
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant/Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:10-CR-44-PPS-PRS-1
No. 2:17-CV-339-PPS

OPINION AND ORDER
On July 28, 2017, approximately two months after she was sentenced to ten months
imprisonment for violating the terms of her supervised release, Petitioner Iedkia Smith, a
prisoner without a lawyer, sent a letter to the court seeking to have her sentence vacated. [DE
96.] 1 I have previously construed Smith’s letter as a motion to vacate her sentence pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255. [DE 100.] In her motion, Smith asks that her sentence be vacated and that she
be placed in an inpatient drug treatment program. I must deny Smith’s motion because it is
without merit. Her ten-month prison sentence was imposed only after she admitted to repeated
violations the terms of her supervised release and after she herself requested that she be
imprisoned rather than remain under supervised release.
On September 9, 2010, Smith pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g) for
possessing a firearm as a previously convicted felon. [DE 30.] She was subsequently sentenced

1

Smith was released from custody on May 15, 2018. See Federal Bureau of Prisons
Inmate Location, available at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc (accessed July 11, 2018). But
Smith’s release from prison does “not defeat the district court’s jurisdiction nor [does] it moot
the petition.” Bjerkan v. United States, 529 F.2d 125, 126 (7th Cir. 1975) (citation omitted).

to sixty months of imprisonment and twenty-four months of supervised released. [DE 74.] After
she was released from prison following her original sentence, Smith violated the terms of her
supervised release and was sentenced to ten months imprisonment in lieu of continuing with
supervised released. [DE 95.] Smith seeks to have this second ten-month sentence vacated.
Smith presents three arguments as to why she is entitled to have her sentence vacated.
Each of these arguments are contradicted by Smith’s testimony at her revocation hearing where
she pleaded guilty to violations of the terms of her supervision. “Entry of a plea of guilty is not
some empty ceremony, and statements made to a federal judge in open court are not trifles that
defendants may elect to disregard.” United States v. Loutos, 383 F.3d 615, 619 (7th Cir. 2004)
(citation omitted). As such, Smith’s prior sworn statements before me are entitled to a
“presumption of verity” that will not be disregarded lightly. Id. (citation omitted).
First, Smith states that she was “led to believe imprisonment was my only option” and
that “continuing probation with or without extending the term or modifying or enlarging the
conditions was a [sic] option that I was not made aware of.” [DE 96 at 4.] But at her revocation
hearing, I explained to Smith that in the event I found she had violated the terms of her
supervised relief, I could either modify the terms of her supervision or sentence her to additional
prison time:
Q. All right. Now, do you understand that if I find that you violated your
supervision I’m authorized by law to do one of two things? I could first continue
you on supervision and change the terms of the supervision and perhaps extend
the supervision, that’s the first option. The second option is that I can revoke
your supervision and sentence you to an additional term of prison, and in this
case I believe the maximum is two years. Do you understand that? A. Yes.
[DE 100 Tr. 4:14-23.] Prior to her revocation hearing, Smith reviewed and signed an Agreed
Disposition of Supervised Release Violations in which she admitted to testing positive for
marijuana. [DE 93.]

She further testified under oath at her revocation hearing that she knew

she was not to use any sort of illegal drugs as part of her supervised release and that she
knowingly used marijuana during the term of her supervised release, testing positive for
marijuana on multiple occasions. [[DE 100 Tr. 6:12-7:8.]
Second, Smith argues that her sentence should be vacated because she “followed terms
and conditions,” presumably of her supervised release. [DE at 6.] As recounted above, Smith
admitted in open court to multiple knowing violations of the terms of her supervised release.
Third, Smith argues that she was “led to believe that 10 months imprisonment was the
minimum sentence.” This too is belied by Smith’s own statements. The signed Agreed
Disposition of Supervised Release Violations specifically stated that “the suggested range of
incarceration is between 7 and 13 months.” [DE 93.] Smith further agreed under oath that she
had reviewed and discussed with her counsel the contents of her Summary Report of Violations,
which likewise contained the sentencing options which were available. [DE 100 Tr. 4:1-13.]
ACCORDINGLY: Petitioner Ikedia Smith’s motion to vacate her sentence pursuant to §
2255 is DENIED.
SO ORDERED July 12, 2018

/s/ Philip P. Simon__________
Philip P. Simon, Judge
United States District Court