Speagle v. USA

Filing 13

ORDER denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration (actually captioned as Motion to Recall Mandate under Rule 40/41); denying 9 Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56(a). Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 8/13/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(cbb)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL NO. 5:12cv134-RLV
(5:05-cr-234-RLV-CH-2)
JOHN ANDREW SPEAGLE, SR.,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________ )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s “Motion to Recall Mandate under Rule
40/41 and Reconsider Motion Relating to Simmons Claim.” (Doc. No. 8). Petitioner’s motion is
in the nature of a motion for reconsideration, and Petitioner is seeking for this Court to
reconsider its March 11, 2013, judgment denying and dismissing as successive Petitioner’s
motion to vacate, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on August 17, 2012. Also pending is Petitioner’s
related “Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56(a),” in which he reiterates the arguments
made in his motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 9). For the following reasons, Petitioner’s
motions are both denied.
Petitioner pleaded guilty on August 18, 2006, to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). (Crim. Case
No. 5:05-cr-234-RLV-CH-2, Doc. No. 86: Acceptance and Entry of Guilty Plea). In his plea
agreement, Petitioner stipulated that he was responsible for at least 15 kilograms of
methamphetamine, supporting a base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines of 38. (Id.,
Doc. No. 75: Amended Plea Agreement). The probation officer calculated an advisory
1

Sentencing Guidelines range of between 292 and 365 months in prison based on a total offense
level of 35 (after a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility) and a criminal history
category of VI. (Id., PSR at ¶¶ 31; 74). Petitioner also faced a statutory, mandatory minimum
term of 240 months based on his prior conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and the
Government’s notice filed in accordance with 21 U.S.C. § 851. This Court ultimately sentenced
Petitioner to 292 months in prison, the bottom of the guideline range. (Id., Doc. No. 125:
Judgment). The Fourth Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgment, and on June 4, 2009, Petitioner
filed a timely motion to vacate, asserting numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
(Civil No. 5:09cv66, Doc. No. 1). This Court dismissed Petitioner’s motion to vacate, finding
that he had not produced evidence that his trial counsel’s representation was constitutionally
deficient. (Civil No. 5:09cv66, Doc. No. 4).
On August 17, 2012, Petitioner filed a second motion to vacate, arguing that he was
sentenced as a career offender and subject to a statutory mandatory minimum term in prison in
violation of United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Determining that
Petitioner’s motion to vacate was second or successive and that Petitioner had not obtained
authorization to file a second-or-successive petition, this Court dismissed Petitioner’s second
motion to vacate on March 11, 2013. Eight months later, Petitioner filed the pending motion,
arguing that counsel misadvised him concerning his Simmons claim.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is denied. First, this Court’s decision to dismiss
Petitioner’s second motion to vacate was correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) because Petitioner
had not obtained authorization from a court of appeals to permit the filing of a second-orsuccessive motion to vacate. Second, Petitioner’s total offense level was determined based on
the drug quantity to which he stipulated in his plea agreement, not based on his status as a career
2

offender, and his sentence of 292 months in prison was well above the 240-month mandatory
minimum, such that any Simmons error was harmless. Therefore, even if Petitioner could
properly assert a claim for relief in a second-or-successive motion to vacate, his Simmons claim
would fail. In sum, Petitioner has not identified any error in this Court’s order dismissing his
second motion to vacate. Thus, his motion for reconsideration is denied. Accordingly, his
related motion for summary judgment is also denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion to Recall Mandate under Rule
40/41 and Reconsider Motion Relating to Simmons Claim,” (Doc. No. 8), and Petitioner’s
“Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56(a),” (Doc. No. 9), are both DENIED.

Signed: August 13, 2015

3