Miller v. United States of America
Filing
16
ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) (CR10-4010-DEO-3). Signed by Senior Judge Donald E OBrien on 5/7/2014. (des)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
KRISTINE JEAN MILLER,
Petitioner,
No. 13-CV-4082-DEO
v.
ORDER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
_______________
I.
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before this Court on Petitioner, Kristine
Miller’s [hereinafter Ms. Miller’s], 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,
Docket No. 1, and the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Docket
No. 11.
The parties appeared for hearing on April 23, 2014.
After listening to the parties’ arguments, the Court took the
matter under consideration and now enters the following.
II.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On November 10, 2010, this Court sentenced Ms. Miller to
120
months
incarceration
on
charges
distribution of methamphetamine.
to
the
See 10-CR-4010-DEO.
Ms.
Miller did not appeal her sentence.
related
On August 22, 2013, Ms.
Miller filed a pro se Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255.
Review
On October 29, 2013, the Court entered an Initial
Order
allowing
Ms.
Miller’s
case
to
proceed
and
appointing attorney Shelley Goff to represent her. Docket No.
2.
On December 30, 2013, Ms. Goff filed a status report.
Docket No. 10.
In part, that report stated:
[t]he undersigned has reviewed the Ms.
Miller’s “Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to
Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence By
A Person in Federal Custody” (Doc. 1)...
The undersigned’s review ... failed to
uncover any additional basis upon which Ms.
Miller could argue that she is entitled to
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 or any
other statute.
Docket No. 10, p. 1-2.
Ms. Goff goes on to say:
[t]his is an unfortunate case of young
mother of three children receiving a
draconian 10 year sentence even though
there is no indication that she was
anything more than an addicted pill smurf
married to her supplier. She had one prior
felony drug conviction for very similar
“smurfing” and addiction related behavior.
If Ms. Miller had been indicted after the
August 2013 “Holder Memo” directing the
United States Attorneys Office to use
discretion in seeking mandatory minimums
where the offender is a non-violent, low
level drug offender, Ms. Miller would have
enjoyed a chance at this change of heart by
the government. However, the Holder memo
comes to[o] late for Ms. Miller...
The
undersigned rarely files a report such as
this, finding nothing upon which to argue
for relief. With regret, the undersigned
reports to this court that no amendment
and/or supplementation or brief will be
forthcoming.
2
Docket No. 10, p. 3-4.
On January 6, 2014, the Government filed a Motion to
Dismiss.
Docket No. 11.
The Government argues that Ms.
Miller’ habeas petition is time barred, and, even if it were
not time barred, Ms. Miller has failed to state a plausible
claim for relief.
Docket No. 11.
In her pro se Petition, Ms. Miller argued that the case
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) rendered her
120 month sentence inappropriate because her prior conviction
was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
As was stated
above, the Court held a hearing on this matter on April 23,
2014. During the hearing, Ms. Miller stated that her attorney
had explained that Alleyne did not affect her sentence.
stated in Ms. Goff’s report:
Ms. Miller asserts only one issue: that
the Supreme Court's Ruling in Alleyne v.
United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013)
rendered her sentence of 120 months
inappropriate.
The
undersigned's
correspondence with Ms. Miller reveals that
Ms. Miller believes that Alleyne overruled
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)
and now requires that prior convictions be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The
undersigned's review of Alleyne and other
case law does not support this contention.
In any event, Ms. Miller stipulated to a
prior felony drug conviction in paragraph
8A of her plea agreement with the
government.
(Document 102 in Case No.
3
As
10-cr-4010-DEO).
Therefore, even if
Alleyne
over
ruled
Apprendi,
her
stipulation to the prior felony drug
conviction renders the issue moot.
Docket No. 10, p. 2-3.
Based on that understanding, Ms.
Miller stated during the hearing that she did not resist the
Government’s Motion to Dismiss.
Accordingly, the Motion to
Dismiss will be granted.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, the Government’s Motion to
Dismiss, Docket No. 11, is GRANTED. Ms. Miller’s Petition for
habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of May, 2014.
__________________________________
Donald E. O’Brien, Senior Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of Iowa
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?