Speed-Bey v. USA

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/7/16. (CAR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTONIO NATHANIEL
SPEED-BEY,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-1699 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Antonio Speed-Bey moves the Court to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion is denied.
Movant was found guilty by a jury of being a felon in possession with a
firearm. United States v. Speed, No. 4:13-CR-295 RWS. The Court sentenced him
to eighty-four months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
affirmed the judgment and sentence.
Movant brings two grounds for relief. First, he argues that “future custody
under a judgment of the district court would violate the Constitution.” Second, he
maintains that this Court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is an “alien
detainee.”
Both grounds for relief are legally frivolous. He is currently in the custody
of the Bureau of Prisons. So, he is not subject to future custody. To the extent that

he is arguing that the Court’s imposition of supervised release is unconstitutional
or violates the laws of the United States, his claim is meritless. Supervised release
is authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3583, and it does not violate a defendant’s right to
due process. E.g., United States v. Camacho-Dominguez, 905 F.2d 82, 84 (5th Cir.
1990).
His second ground for relief appears to be based on his claim, in the
underlying criminal case, of being Moorish-American. Fatal to his assertion of
immunity, however, is the non-recognition of the Moorish Nation as a sovereign
state by the United States. See, e.g., Benton-El v. Odom, 2007 WL 1812615 *6
(M.D. Ga. June 19, 2007).
Finally, movant has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether he is entitled to relief.

Thus, the Court will not issue a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
Dated this 7th day of November, 2016.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2