SHARIF v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Filing
5
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 5/10/2016. (JB, )
*NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RAJAHN OMAR SHARIF,
Civil Action No. 16-915 (JLL)
Petitioner,
V.
OPINION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
LINARES, District Judge:
Presently before the Court is the motion of Petitioner Rajahn Omar Sharif s requesting that
this Court reconsider its order and opinion dismissing Petitioner's motion to vacate his
sentence/petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction brought pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (ECF No. 4). For the reasons set forth below, this Court will
deny Petitioner's motion.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 18, 2016, Petitioner, Rajahn Omar Sharif, filed a motion, purportedly brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), seeking to vacate his sentence on the grounds that he was
improperly found to be a career offender on the basis of simple possession drug charges. (ECF
No. 1). Although Petitioner briefly mentioned Johnson v. United States, --- U.S.---, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015), in his motion, Petitioner relied upon caselaw established in this Circuit in United
States v. Hernandez, 218 F.3d 272, 278 (3d Cir. 2000) (noting that simple possession is not a
controlled substance offense sufficient to support career offender status), and United States v.
Williams, 176 F.3d 714, 717 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1999) (same), for the basis of his claim. (Id.).
On March 23, 2016, this Court entered an order dismissing Petitioner's motion as a second
or successive§ 2255 motion brought without leave of the Court of Appeals over which this Court
lacked jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 2-3). In so doing, this Court noted that Petitioner relied in his
motion on caselaw from the Third Circuit that was in effect both at the time of his direct appeal
and at the time of his original§ 2255 motion, and as such found that the§ 2255 remedy was not
inadequate or ineffective as applied to Petitioner, and that Petitioner therefore did not meet the
requirements of the safety valve set forth in§ 2255(e). (ECF No. 2 at 4-7).
On or about April 18, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion asking that this Court reconsider his
motion and alter or amend its judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (ECF
No. 4). In this motion for reconsideration, Petitioner again mentions Johnson, but, as in his
original motion, ultimately rests on the propositions announced in Williams and Hernandez to
make his argument that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender. (Id. at 6-8).
Thus, other than a purported summary of the history of § 2255 which is of no moment here,
Petitioner's motion for consideration contains no new information or law which this Court
overlooked in deciding Petitioner's case. (Id.).
II. DISCUSSION
B. Legal Standard
The scope of a motion brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) is extremely limited. See Blystone
v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011). Such a motion may not be used to relitigate every
2
facet of a case, but rather may be employed "only to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to
present newly discovered evidence." Id. "'Accordingly, a judgment may be altered or amended
[only] if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not
available when the court [decided the motion], or (3) the need to correct a clear error oflaw or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice."' Id. (quoting Howard Hess Dental Labs., Inc. v. Dentsply Int 'l
Inc., 602 F.2d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010)). In this context, manifest injustice "generally ... means
that the Court overlooked some dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented to it," or that
a "direct, obvious, and observable" error occurred. See Brown v. Zickefoose, Civil Action No.
11-3330, 2011 WL 5007829, at *2, n. 3 (D.N.J. 2011).
B. Analysis
In his Rule 59(e) motion, Petitioner presents no facts or law which this Court overlooked
in deciding his motion, but instead attempts to relitigate the same issues which this Court dealt
with in its order and opinion dismissing his case. The only purportedly "new" information
Petitioner brings to bear is an argument that Johnson should be applied retroactively, and a more
direct argument that this should warrant this Court granting Petitioner an opportunity to bring his
claims via the§ 2255(e) safety valve as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Although the Supreme Court has since held that Johnson is retroactive, see generally
Welch v. United States, --- U.S.---, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), that fact has no bearing on
Petitioner's motion. Petitioner does not argue that he was subject to the crime of violence
residual clause which was invalidated in Johnson, but instead argues that he was improperly
3
found to be a career offender based upon drug offenses including simple possession charges,
which he argues is improper under pre-existing case law, specifically that announced in
Hernandez and Williams, both of which were available to Petitioner both at the time of his direct
appeal, and at the time of his original motion to vacate his sentence. See Hernandez, 218 F.3d
at 278; Williams, 176 F.3d at 717 n. 3. Thus, Petitioner's claim is not based on Johnson, is not
based on new law or facts which were not available previously, and could have been raised both
on direct appeal and during Petitioner's original § 2255 motion. As such, for the reasons
explained in this Court's prior opinion, Petitioner is not entitled to the safety valve as the§ 2255
remedy is not inadequate or ineffective in this case, and Petitioner's motion is a second or
successive motion brought without leave of the Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 2 at 4-7). This
Court did not overlook any law or facts, nor did its prior opinion, which was legally and factually
accurate, work a manifest injustice upon Petitioner. Petitioner has therefore failed to establish
any basis for Rule 59( e) relief, and this Court will deny Petitioner's motion. Blystone, 664 F .3d
at 415.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner's Rule 59(e) motion shall be denied.
appropriate order follows.
Ho . ose L. Linares,
U · ed States District Judge
4
An
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?