May v. USA - 2255
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 10/6/2014. (aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ALTON CHARLES MAY,
# 13433-016,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
******
Civil Action No. RWT-14-2999
Criminal Action No. RWT-12-0278
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is Petitioner Alton Charles May’s (the “Petitioner”) Motion to Vacate
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the “Motion to Vacate”). Crim. No. RWT-12-0278, ECF No. 127. The
Petitioner pled guilty to interference with commerce by robbery and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a crime of violence. On October 24, 2013, he was sentenced to 216 months
imprisonment as to the robbery charge and a consecutive 84 month sentence as to the firearm
charge, plus 5 years of supervised release, a special assessment, and restitution. The Petitioner
did not appeal.
In the present Motion to Vacate, the Petitioner claims that the Government breached the
plea agreement by forcing him to testify against his co-defendant, Steven Vondell Williams
(“Williams”). Id. at 5. The Petitioner asserts the plea agreement stated, that in exchange for his
guilty plea “[a]ny statement the defendant make[s] during such hearing would not be admissible
against him during a trial except in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement . . . If the
court accepts the defendant’s plea of guilty there will be no further trial or proceeding of any
kind, and the court will find him guilty.” Id. (emphasis added).
The Government called the Petitioner to testify in the later trial of Williams.
ECF No. 127-1, at 3. During the trial, the Petitioner denied knowing Williams but admitted that
an individual known as “Steven Williams” was charged in Count One of the Petitioner’s
indictment as his co-defendant. Id. The Petitioner contends that the Government’s decision to
use his plea statement against Williams violated his plea agreement. However, the Petitioner’s
plea agreement, which states that both he and Williams were responsible for the May 3, 2011
armed robbery of the driver of a Loomis armored vehicle, is public record and was used against
Williams, not the Petitioner. ECF No. 55-1, at 1. That the Government called the Petitioner at
Williams’s trial to admit to entering this plea, in no way violates the terms of his plea agreement,
because the Petitioner’s statements were not used against him, but rather against Williams.
Accordingly, the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate is without merit.
For the reasons stated herein, the Court shall deny the Petition.1
A Certificate of
Appealability will not issue because May has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38
(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85 (2000). A separate order follows.
October 6, 2014
/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
As there is no separate civil filing fee required for the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, thus
the Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis shall be denied as moot. Crim. No. RWT-12-0278,
ECF No. 128.
2
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?