Meeks v. USA

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM re: 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence filed by Petitioner Antoine Meeks, Jr. ; An order consistent with this Memorandum will be entered separately.. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 7/14/17. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTOINE MEEKS, JR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

No. 4:16-CV-1041 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM
Before the Court is the motion of Antoine Meeks, Jr. to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States has not
filed a response.
I. Background
After pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of
18

U.S.C.

§

922(g)(1),

Meeks

was

sentenced

to

an

84-month

term

of

imprisonment. At sentencing, the Court determined that Meeks’s base offense level
was 20 because he had he had a prior felony conviction for a controlled substance
offense.

See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).1 The guideline range for imprisonment

was 84 to 105 months.
II. Discussion
Meeks first argues that the Court should vacate his sentence because his
sentencing enhancement is invalid in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
1

Section 4B1.2(b) defines a controlled substance offense as “an offense under federal or
state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that prohibits the
manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a
counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit
substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.” Meeks had
a prior state court conviction for distributing oxycodone.

2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the
Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), was void for vagueness.
The decision in Johnson is inapplicable here because Meeks was not sentenced
under the ACCA.
In Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), the Court held that the
Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a void-for-vagueness challenge under the
Due Process Clause, and more specifically, that the “crime of violence” clause of
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) is not void for vagueness. Thus, Beckles affords no relief to
Meeks.
Meeks also contests the calculation of his offense level and criminal history
points as set forth in the presentence report.2

The issue of whether the Court

misapplied the sentencing guidelines is one that could have been raised on direct
appeal. As such, Meeks cannot this claim in a proceeding under § 2255, absent a
showing of cause and prejudice.

See Boyer v. United States, 988 F.2d 56, 57 (8th

Cir. 1993); Reid v. United States, 976 F.2d 446, 447 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
507 U.S. 945 (1993) [citing United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982)]. Because
Meeks has not made the requisite showing, the Court will not consider his challenge
to the calculation of the guideline range. See Auman v. United States, 67 F.3d 157,
161 (8th Cir. 1995) (reasoning that section 2255 does not provide relief in cases
with “garden-variety Sentencing Guideline application issues,” which should be
asserted on direct appeal).
2

Meeks argues that (1) the report erroneously applied § 2K2.1(a)(2) to assign a base
offense level of 24, (2) inadequate documentation and information was provided in the
report for his prior controlled substance offense, (3) the § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement was
improperly applied, and (4) his criminal history computation was inaccurate because he was
improperly given an extra point for his conviction for receiving stolen property under $500.
[Doc. #2 at 5–8].

2

***
For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that Meeks is not
entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on the claims he asserts in the
motion to vacate. Therefore, the motion will be denied without a hearing. See
Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 240 (8th Cir. 1995). Additionally, the Court
finds that Meeks has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. Therefore, no certificate of appealability will be issued. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253.
An order consistent with this Memorandum will be entered separately.

CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 14th day of July, 2017.

3