Lowery v. USA - 2255
OPINION denying Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Civil Action GLR-16-2890) as to Stephon Terrell Lowery; directing Clerk to close this case. A certificate of appealability will not issue. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 4/18/2017. (c/m 4/18/17) (krs, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
STEPHON TERRELL LOWERY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Civil Action No. GLR-16-2890
(Related Crim. Case GLR-14-0248)
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Stephon Terrell Lowery’s (“Lowery”) Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 392). The
government opposes the Motion (ECF No. 394). Petitioner Lowery has filed a Reply (ECF No.
395). No hearing is necessary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (b). For reasons outlined below, the
Motion will be denied.
On April 8, 2015, Lowery plead guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
to distribute 28 grams or more of a mixture of substance containing a detectable amount of
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (ECF No. 193). The written plea agreement was
tendered pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) and provided for a term of
imprisonment of 96 months to 144 months (ECF No. 193). Lowery, within the confines of the
plea agreement, waived his right to appeal his conviction as well as his sentence, as long as that
sentence was not greater than 144 months imprisonment (ECF No. 193). On August 26, 2015,
the Court sentenced Lowery to 120 months imprisonment (ECF No. 311). On August 15, 2016,
Lowery filed the present Motion. Lowery contends he is entitled to relief under Amendment 794
to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 3B1.2 adopted on November 1, 2015,
because he played a “minor role” in the narcotics conspiracy.
Claims under § 2255 can be based only on a claim of lack of jurisdiction, constitutional
error, an error resulting in a complete miscarriage of justice or a proceeding that is inconsistent
with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure. See Hamilton v. United States, 67 F.3d 761,
763 (9th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. White, 2016 WL 4523288, at 1 (W.D. Va. Aug. 26,
2016). The government correctly points out that Lowery fails to allege any cognizable defect
under § 2255. His request for retroactive benefits of an amendment to the U.S.S.G., cannot be
brought as a § 2255 motion, but must be brought as a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. See
White, 2016 WL 4523288, at 1. As a result, the Court must dismiss Lowery’s petition.
Further, even assuming the Court construed Lowery’s Motion as a Petition seeking
reduction under 18 U.S.S.C. § 3582(c), the Petition must be denied because Amendment 794 is
not applicable retroactively. See U.S.S.G. 1B1.1(e). The Sentencing Commission has made
clear that Amendment 794 may be reviewed only on direct appeal and not on collateral review,
which Lowery seeks here.
United States v Fakhoury, 2016 WL 4939226, at 2 (D. Md.
September 14, 2016). As a result, for this reason, the Petition must be denied as well.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the
Court is required to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order
adverse to the applicant. A certificate of appealability is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal
from the court’s earlier order. United States v. Hadden, 475, F.3d 652, 659 (4th Cir. 2007). A
certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where a motion is denied on a
procedural ground, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can
demonstrate both “(1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a
valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right; and (2) that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001). Lowery does not satisfy the standard. As a result, a certificate of
appealability will not issue. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.
So ORDERED this 18th day of April 2017.
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge
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?