Battice v. United States of America
Filing
8
OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DUANE SCOTT BATTICE,
Movant,
File No. 1:15-cv-329
v.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
/
OPINION
Pending before this Court is Movant Duane Scott Battice’s pro se motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence imposed upon him (ECF No. 1). The government
filed a response to this motion (ECF No. 7) and Movant has not filed a reply. The Court has carefully
considered the arguments presented, and for the reasons that follow, the Court denies the § 2255
motion and issues this Opinion, Final Order, and Judgment. See Rules Governing § 2255 Cases, Rule
11 (referring to the order disposing of a habeas petition as a “final order”).
I.
On January 27, 2011, Movant pled guilty to one count of production of child pornography
pursuant to a plea agreement (No. 1:10-cr-357, ECF Nos. 15, 16). On September 16, 2011, this Court
sentenced Movant to 288 months’ imprisonment (ECF No. 29). Judgment was entered on September
23, 2011. (ECF No. 30.) Movant did not appeal.
On March 26, 2015, Movant filed his petition for post-conviction release. (No. 1:15-cv-329,
ECF No. 1.) Movant argues that the Court lacked federal jurisdiction over his criminal case because
the hard drive and camera used in his crime did not provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.
(Petition at 2.) The government filed a response to the motion on May 21, 2015. (ECF No. 7.)
Government contends that Movant’s motion is untimely and his claim is without merit.
II.
A.
Motion Standards
A prisoner who moves to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must show that the
sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, that the court was
without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, that the sentence was in excess of the maximum
authorized by law, or that it is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). To prevail
on a § 2255 motion, the movant must demonstrate “the existence of an error of constitutional
magnitude which had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the guilty plea or the jury’s
verdict.” Humphress v. United States, 398 F.3d 855, 858 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Griffin v. United
States, 330 F.3d 733, 736 (6th Cir. 2003)). Non-constitutional errors are generally outside the scope
of § 2255 relief. United States v. Cofield, 233 F.3d 405, 407 (6th Cir. 2000). A movant can prevail
on a § 2255 motion alleging non-constitutional error only by establishing a “fundamental defect
which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice, or, an error so egregious that it amounts
to a violation of due process.” Watson v. United States, 165 F.3d 486, 488 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting
United States v. Ferguson, 918 F.2d 627, 630 (6th Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted)).
The general rule is that claims not raised on direct appeal may not be raised on collateral
review unless the petitioner shows cause and prejudice. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504
(2003). However, “[a] § 2255 motion may not be used to relitigate an issue that was raised on appeal
absent highly exceptional circumstances,” DuPont v. United States, 76 F.3d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1996)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted), or “an intervening change in the case law.” Wright
2
v. United States, 182 F.3d 458, 467 (6th Cir. 1999).
In an action to vacate or correct a sentence, a court is generally required to grant a hearing
to determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law “[u]nless the motion and
the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28
U.S.C. § 2255(b). No evidentiary hearing is required if Movant’s allegations “cannot be accepted
as true because they are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or conclusions rather than
statements of fact.” Valentine v. United States, 488 F.3d 325, 333 (6th Cir. 2007). “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.” Rules Governing § 2255 Cases,
Rule 4(b). Where the judge considering the § 2255 motion also conducted the trial, the judge may
rely on his or her recollections of the trial. Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227, 235 (6th Cir.
1996).
It is unnecessary to address the timeliness of Movant’s petition because his legal claim is
clearly without merit. The files and records in this case conclusively show that Movant is not entitled
to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly, no evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the
merits of the pending motion.
B.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Movant argues that the Supreme Court has rejected jurisdictional hooks like the one
employed in his case, in which the computer and camera used in the commission of this crime
supported federal jurisdiction because they had been manufactured outside the state of Michigan.
(Mov.’s Br. at 4, ECF No. 2.) The Sixth Circuit has directly addressed the precise issue raised by
Movant, and rejected the case-by-case analysis advanced by Movant under United States v. Lopez,
3
514 U.S. 549 (1995), and United Sates v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). In light of Gonzales v.
Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), the Sixth Circuit opined that it “cannot envision, after Raich, a
circumstance under which an as-applied Commerce Clause challenge to a charge of childpornography possession or production would be successful.” United States v. Bowers, 594 F.3d 522,
530 (6th Cir. 2010).
Under the lengthy reasoning provided in Bowers, this Court finds that it did not lack federal
subject matter jurisdiction. Movant’s position has no legal support.
III.
Having determined that Movant’s arguments do not merit granting his motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence imposed upon him, this Court may also
determine whether to issue a certificate of appealability on these constitutional claims. See Castro
v. United States, 310 F.3d 900, 901-03 (6th Cir. 2002).
A certificate of appealability should issue if the Movant has demonstrated a “substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals has disapproved the issuance of blanket denials of certificates of appealability. Murphy v.
Ohio, 263 F.3d 466, 467 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, a district court must “engage in a reasoned
assessment of each claim” to determine whether a certificate is warranted. Id. Each issue must be
considered under the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473 (2000). Id. Consequently, this Court has examined Movant’s arguments under the
Slack standard.
To warrant a grant of the certificate, “the [Movant] must demonstrate that reasonable jurists
would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack,
4
529 U.S. at 484. The Court holds that reasonable jurists could not find this Court’s assessment of
Movant’s arguments debatable or wrong. Therefore, the Court denies Defendant a certificate of
appealability as to each issue presented.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Movant’s § 2255 motion and denies a certificate
of appealability as to each issue raised.
The Court will issue a Final Order and Judgment consistent with this Opinion.
Dated: June 24, 2015
/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?