Lewis v. United States of America

Filing 16

ORDER AND OPINION ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OPINION as to Eric Alberto Lewis re: 531 Motion to Vacate (2255) filed by Eric Alberto Lewis. ADOPTING re: 613 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION, The United States Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the Movants § 2255 is DENIED. ( Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified. (see also 4:11cr0001-4)(jdav, 4)

Download PDF
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § § § § § VS. ERIC ALBERTO LEWIS March 07, 2018 David J. Bradley, Clerk CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:11-CR-00001-4 OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court in the above referenced proceeding is Movant Eric Alberto Lewis’s § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Document No. 531) and Memorandum of Law in Support (Document No. 533); the United States’ Response and Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 585); Movant’s Response to the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 590); and Judge Stacy’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R) that the Court deny the § 2255 Motion and grant the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Document No. 613). No objections were filed to the Memorandum and Recommendation. After reviewing Judge Stacy’s M&R, Movant’s motions and response, the United States’ response and motion, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the M&R (Document No. 613) should be adopted, the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 585) should be granted, and Movant’s § 2255 Motion (Document No. 531) should be denied. STANDARD OF REVIEW Where no party objects to the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, the Court is not required to perform a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s determination, but need only review it to decide whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Gamez v. United States, No. SA-06CR-401-XR, 2014 WL 2114043, at *2 (W.D. Tex. May 20, 2014) (citing United States v. 1/3 Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989)). DISCUSSION Once a defendant has been convicted and has exhausted or waived his or her right to appeal, the Court may presume that he or she “stands fairly and finally convicted.” United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 595 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore relief under § 2255 is limited to “transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and would, if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Gaudet, 81 F.3d 585, 589 (5th Cir. 1996). The Court’s ability to reduce or modify a sentence of imprisonment once it has been imposed is restricted. United States v. Lopez, 26 F.3d 512, 515 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). There are four grounds on which a defendant may move to vacate, set aside, or correct his or her sentence under § 2255: (1) “the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States”; (2) “the [sentencing] court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence”; (3) “the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law”; and (4) the sentence was “otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). “A defendant can challenge [his or her] conviction after it is presumed final only on issues of constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude . . . and may not raise an issue for the first time on collateral review without showing both ‘cause’ for his[ or her] procedural default and ‘actual prejudice’ resulting from the error.” United States v. Shaid, 937 F.2d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). The Court has carefully reviewed the filings, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, and the applicable law and finds the M&R is neither erroneous in its factual findings nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s M&R as its own. CONCLUSION 2/3 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the Movant’s § 2255 is DENIED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 7th day of March, 2018. ___________________________________ MELINDA HARMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3/3

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?