Goodwin v. United State of America

Filing 23

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of error coram nobis is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on February 16, 2021. (MCB)

Case: 4:19-cv-01893-HEA Doc. #: 23 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 67

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL GOODWIN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 4:19CV1893 HEA
)
)
)
)

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Error
Coram nobis Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence, [Doc. No. 1]. The
Government opposes the Petition and seeks dismissal thereof. For the reasons set
forth below, the Petition is denied, and this matter is dismissed.
Basis for Petition
Petitioner seeks to have his plea agreement found to be void because of a
lack of specificity in the amount of drugs for which he was sentenced. He claims
he was harmed because the Court refused to grant his motion for relief to reduce
his sentence by 31 months when other federal inmates received the benefit of the
crack reduction in their sentence. Petitioner argues that “newly discovered
evidence” allows him to bring this action. According to Petitioner, the “newly
discovered evidence” is found on Page 9 of the Government’s Appeal Brief in

Case: 4:19-cv-01893-HEA Doc. #: 23 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #: 68

Petitioner’s appeal of his criminal case wherein the Government, in its Summary of
the Argument, states that “”[t]he defendant correctly states that there is a lack of
specificity as to how the quantity was reached.” However, the Government
initially unequivocally states in the first sentence of its Summary that “no cocaine
bases was considered in determining defendant Goodwin’s sentence. There was no
evidence that he was involved with cocaine base.” The Government further stated
that the formula Defendant proposed was “pure speculation. The defendant
converts the quantities of cocaine base listed in the statement of facts and arrives at
a figure within the 15 to 50 kilograms. No such conversion was ever made in
determining Goodwin’s guidelines.” The basis for Petitioner’s Petition fails.
Discussion
A person who has been convicted of a federal crime and is no longer in
federal custody may seek a writ of error coram nobis to set aside the conviction
and sentence. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 505–06 (1954); United
States v. Little, 608 F.2d 296, 299 (8th Cir. 1979). Coram nobis relief is
“substantially equivalent” to post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. The
main difference between the two remedies is that coram nobis relief is available
when the defendant is no longer in custody, whereas custody is a prerequisite for §
2255 relief. Id.; United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 1172 n.6 (8th
Cir. 1996).
2

Case: 4:19-cv-01893-HEA Doc. #: 23 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #: 69

The Supreme Court has cautioned that a writ of coram nobis is an
“extraordinary remedy” that should be allowed “only under circumstances
compelling such action to achieve justice” and to correct errors “of the most
fundamental character.” Morgan, 346 U.S. at 511–12. “Coram nobis relief has
been called the criminal-law equivalent of the Hail Mary pass in American
football.” Baranski v. United States, 880 F.3d 951, 954 (8th Cir. 2018) (citing
United States v. George, 676 F.3d 249, 251 (1st Cir. 2012)). This is because “[t]he
further a case progresses through the remedial steps available to a criminal
defendant, the stiffer the requirements for vacating a final judgment.... The writ of
error coram nobis lies at the far end of this continuum.” Id. (quoting George, 676
F.3d at 258). Given that coram nobis relief is at the far end of the remedial
spectrum and is subject to the stiffest requirements for vacating a judgment, the
requirements for obtaining coram nobis relief cannot be less stringent than those
required for § 2255 relief. Id. at 956.
In Baranski, the Eighth Circuit held that a petitioner whose § 2255 motion
was denied while the petitioner was in custody does not need to comply with the
“procedural” requirements of obtaining authorization from the court of appeals
before submitting a coram nobis petition in the district court. Baranski, 880 F.3d at
955-56. Nevertheless, the Baranski Court further held that a petitioner whose §
2255 motion was denied while the petitioner was in custody is subject to the
3

Case: 4:19-cv-01893-HEA Doc. #: 23 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #: 70

“substantive” restrictions set forth in § 2255(h)(1) and (2) when seeking coram
nobis relief. Id. at 956. The substantive restrictions set forth in § 2255(h)(1) and (2)
apply in such situations, because “coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy
available at the far end of a post-conviction continuum only for the most
fundamental errors” and “it would make no sense to rule that a petitioner no longer
in custody may obtain coram nobis relief with a less rigorous substantive showing
than that required by AEDPA's limitations for successive habeas corpus and §
2255 relief.” Id.
To obtain coram nobis relief, Petitioner must present “(1) newly discovered
evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable
factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of
constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme
Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); see also Baranski,
880 F.3d at 957-58 (applying the substantive standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
2255(h) when reviewing the merits of a coram nobis petition filed by a petitioner
whose § 2255 motion was denied while the petitioner was in custody).
Petitioner fails to establish that he is entitled to relief under the foregoing
standard. Petitioner does not present newly discovered evidence that would support
his claim. Instead, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief based on a
4

Case: 4:19-cv-01893-HEA Doc. #: 23 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #: 71

previously argued basis, one that has been considered and disallowed. His claim
has been raised and addressed on numerous occasions before this Court and the
Appellate Court.
Goodwin has made repeated efforts to have his sentence reduced, by
motions of various types filed in both the closed criminal case and the closed
civil proceeding on his motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255. See Michael Goodwin v. United States,
4:02CV1709-DJS.
A theme of sorts emerges from some of these filings, and the
petition now before the Court, focusing on Count VII of the
indictment and a discrepancy in its references to cocaine versus
crack cocaine. Count I of the indictment makes reference to a
controlled substance conspiracy involving “‘crack’ (cocaine base)
and/or cocaine.” See United States v. Goodwin, 4:01CR173-DJS,
Indictment [Doc. #1], p.2 (emphasis added). As this Court has
explained, in the order denying Goodwin’s motion for resentencing
based on the retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines
for crack offenses, Goodwin was sentenced based on his stipulation
and plea agreement that he was responsible for more than 15 and
less than 50 kilograms of cocaine, resulting in a base offense
level of 34. See United States v. Goodwin, 4:01CR173-DJS, Order of
August 26, 2008 [Doc. #618], p.2, and Stipulation and Agreement
Relative to Sentencing [Doc. #312], p.5.
Goodwin v. United States, 4:09CV83DJS (E.D Mo. February 12, 2009). Because
Petitioner fails to establish that he is entitled to relief under the substantive
standard set forth in § 2255(h)(1), Petitioner's coram nobis petition is without
merit.
Accordingly,

5

Case: 4:19-cv-01893-HEA Doc. #: 23 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #: 72

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of error coram nobis
is DENIED.
Dated this 16th day of February, 2021.

_________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6