Sessoms v. United States of America

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM and ORDER: Petitioner Sessomss pro se motions 18 & 26 is DENIED. A copy of this decision will be mailed from chambers to the pro se petitioner. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 9/18/2017. (Innelli, Michael) Modified on 9/18/2017 (Innelli, Michael).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------x
JAMES SESSOMS,
Petitioner,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
14-CV-06658-FB

-againstUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
--------------------------------------------------x
Appearances:
For the Petitioner:
JAMES SESSOMS, pro se
63611-053
MDC - Brooklyn
PO Box 329002
Brooklyn, NY 11232

For the Respondent:
JAMES PATRICK LOONAM
United States Attorney
Eastern District of New York
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201

JILLIAN SPITZER HARRINGTON
P.O. Box 6006
Monroe Township, NJ 08831
SAM ALLEN SCHMIDT
Law Office of Sam A. Schmidt
111 Broadway, Suite 1305
New York, NY 10006

BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
James Sessoms, pro se, moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) for
reconsideration of the Court’s July 5, 2017 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to
vacate his sentence. Sessoms’s crimes of conviction included Hobbs Act robbery, as defined

in 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1), and possession of a firearm in connection with a “crime of violence”
under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
“Reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to
controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked – matters, in other words, that might
reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). “The major grounds justifying reconsideration are an
intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence or the need to correct
a clear error or to prevent manifest injustice.” United States v. Tenzer, 213 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.
2000).
Sessoms points to no controlling decisions or data that the Court overlooked, nor does
he identify a clear error.

His motion amounts to objections regarding the Court’s

characterization of the record; these are not a basis for reconsideration. The Court therefore
denies the motion for reconsideration.
Sessoms also moves through counsel to amend his § 2255 motion to add a claim based
on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The Court considers a motion for leave to
amend a § 2255 motion under the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a). See Ching v. United States, 298 F.3d 174, 180 (2d Cir. 2002). Leave “should freely [be]
give[n] . . . when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, the Court “may
properly deny leave when amendment would be futile.” Jones v. New York State Div. of
Military & Naval Affairs, 166 F.3d 45, 50 (2d Cir. 1999).
Sessoms seeks to amend his § 2255 motion to add arguments that none of his crimes

2

of conviction qualified as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and that 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. His new arguments are directly foreclosed by the
Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Hill, 832 F.3d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 2016). The Court
there held that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a “crime of violence” under both §
924(c)(3)(A) and, in the alternative, § 924(c)(3)(B). Hill, 832 F.3d at 140-45. The Court also
explicitly rejected the argument that § 924(c)(3)(B) was void for vagueness under Johnson.
Sessom’s proposed amendment would therefore be futile, and his motion to amend is
accordingly denied. See Jones, 166 F.3d at 50.
For the foregoing reasons, Sessoms’s motions are DENIED.

SO ORDERED

Frederic Block________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
September 18, 2017

3