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)

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