Blue Bird v. United States of America
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; granting 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 8/16/16. (SLW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
GERALDINE BLUE BIRD,
Petitioner,
vs.
5:16-CV-5058-KES
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
Petitioner, Geraldine Blue Bird, moves to correct her sentence because of
a possible Johnson claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Respondent, United States of
America, opposes the motion and moves to dismiss Blue Bird’s motion. Docket
8. For the following reasons, the court denies Blue Bird’s petition.
BACKGROUND
Blue Bird was found guilty by a jury of the following crimes: count 1conspiracy to distribute cocaine, count 2-conspiracy to distribute marijuana,
count 3-possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, count 4-possession
with the intent to distribute cocaine, count 7-possession with the intent to
distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, and count 8-possession of a firearm
in relation to a drug trafficking crime. In her presentence report, the total
offense level was calculated to be 40, and no Chapter Four enhancements were
applied. PSR at ¶ 35. On April 4, 2007, Blue Bird was sentenced to 350 months
in custody on count one, 60 months concurrent to count 1 on count 2, 240
months concurrent to counts 1 and 2 on count 3, 240 months concurrent to
counts 1, 2, and 3 on count 4, 240 months concurrent to counts 1, 2, 3, and 4
on count 7, and 60 months consecutive to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 on count 8.
All sentences were within her advisory guideline ranges.
An amended judgment was filed on March 25, 2015, reducing Blue Bird’s
sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to 281 months on count 1, 60 months
on count 2, 235 months on count 3, 235 months on count 4, 235 months on
count 7, and 60 months on count 8, with counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 to run
concurrently, and the sentence on count 8 to run consecutively with the other
counts.
Blue Bird now moves to correct her sentence because of a new rule of
constitutional law that was announced by the United States Supreme Court in
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). She also moves for
appointment of counsel. By standing order of the Chief Judge for the District of
South Dakota, the Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent Blue
Bird. The Federal Public Defender filed a notice of intent not to supplement
Blue Bird’s pro se filing. The United States moves to dismiss her motion for
failure to state a claim.
DISCUSSION
Johnson addressed the application of the “residual clause” found in the
Armed Career Criminal Act, at 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). But Blue Bird was
not convicted under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Additionally, no
enhancements were applied to her that included residual-clause language.
2
Thus, she has no claim that Johnson somehow invalidated her guidelines
application. Blue Bird was sentenced separately for her firearms conviction
under § 924(c) because she possessed a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking
crime. Her sentence for possession of a firearm did not depend on language
resembling the invalidated Armed Career Criminal Act residual clause. Because
there is no connection between Johnson and Blue Bird’s convictions, Blue
Bird’s motion for a sentence reduction is denied. Similarly, her motion for
appointment of counsel is denied as moot because the Federal Public
Defender’s Office for the District of South Dakota was appointed by standing
order of the Chief Judge of the District of South Dakota.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
When a district court denies a petitioner’s § 2255 motion, the petitioner
must first obtain a certificate of appealability before an appeal of that denial
may be entertained. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). This
certificate may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(2). A “substantial
showing” is one that demonstrates “reasonable jurists would find the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Stated differently, “[a] substantial showing
is a showing that issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could
resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings.” Cox v.
Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997). The court finds that Blue Bird has
not made a substantial showing that her claim is debatable among reasonable
3
jurists, that another court could resolve the issues raised in that claim
differently, or that a question raised by that claim deserves further
proceedings. Consequently, a certificate of appealability is denied.
CONCLUSION
Blue Bird has not demonstrated that she is entitled to a sentence
reduction under Johnson or to the assistance of a court appointed attorney.
And the court denies a certificate of appealability. Thus, it is
ORDERED that Blue Bird’s Motion to Correct her sentence is denied
(Docket 1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Blue Bird’s motion for an attorney
(Docket 1) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States’ motion to dismiss
(Docket 7) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied.
Dated August 16, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?