Memmott v. USA
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: Certificate of Appealability Denied. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 9/18/20 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
PAUL ANDREW MEMMOTT,
Plaintiff,
ORDER AND
MEMORANDUM DECISION
vs.
Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-464-TC
Criminal Case No. 2:08-cr-8568-TC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
On September 18, 2020, the court denied Paul Andrew Memmott’s Motion to Vacate
Conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (See § 2255 Order, ECF No. 9.) Under Rule 11(a) of
the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, “The
district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability [“COA”] when it enters a final
order adverse to the applicant.” For the reasons stated below, the court denies the COA.
LEGAL STANDARD
When a court denies a § 2255 petition, the petitioner does not have an automatic right to
appeal that decision. Instead, the petitioner must obtain a COA from either the district court or
the court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).
To obtain a COA, the petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court should issue a COA only if “jurists of
reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution” of the claims raised in the § 2255
petition or “could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to
1
proceed further.” United States v. Springer, 875 F.3d 968, 972 (10th Cir. 2017) (internal
quotations omitted). If “reasonable jurists would not find the district court’s decision on these
issues debatable or wrong,” the court should deny the COA. Jones v. Warrior, 805 F.3d 1213,
1222 (10th Cir. 2015).
When the court denies a § 2255 petition on procedural grounds (as occurred here), the
petitioner has an additional hurdle. He can obtain a COA only if he shows that both the
procedural issue and the underlying claim are reasonably debatable. Springer, 857 F.3d at 981.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Memmott admitted to four supervised release violations and his judgment of
conviction became final on September 8, 2014. Typically, his § 2255 Motion, which was filed
on June 26, 2020, would be time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), which imposes a one-year
period of limitation running from the date the judgment becomes final. But Mr. Memmott relies
on an alternative method to obtain review: if the United States Supreme Court recognizes a new
right and makes that right retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review, a petitioner
asserting that right may file a § 2255 petition within one year of the Court’s decision. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(f)(3).
In his § 2255 Motion, Mr. Memmott relied on the United States Supreme Court’s 2019
decision in Haymond v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), to obtain review. (See Pl.’s Mot.
to Vac., ECF. No. 1). In Haymond the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), which
imposed a minimum five-year prison sentence for certain supervised release violations
committed by defendants required to register as sex offenders, was unconstitutional for violating
the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
The court rejected Mr. Memmott’s motion as untimely after concluding that Haymond
did not apply retroactively to his conviction. In the § 2255 Order, the court explained that a new
2
constitutional rule of criminal procedure does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral
review unless the rule is substantive or is a watershed rule of criminal procedure. (§ 2255 Order
at 5.) In United States v. Salazar, the 10th Circuit found that the Haymond rule did not fit into
either the substantive exception or the watershed rule exception. 784 Fed. Appx. 579, 583 (10th
Cir. 2019). Applying the 10th Circuit’s holding to Mr. Memmott’s case, the court found that the
rule announced in Haymond did not apply retroactively to Mr. Memmott’s conviction.
Accordingly, Mr. Memmott’s motion was denied as untimely under § 2255(f)(1).
There is little room for disagreement when it comes to the underlying issue of Mr.
Memmott’s motion–Haymond announced a procedural rule that does not apply retroactively to
Mr. Memmott’s conviction. And the procedural issue of timeliness is not subject to debate, as
Mr. Memmott’s motion was filed almost five years after the § 2255(f)(1) one-year limitation
period expired. In the court’s view “‘jurists of reason could [not] disagree with the district
court’s resolution’” of Mr. Memmott’s claims and “‘could [not] conclude the issues presented
are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Springer, 875 F.3d at 972.
ORDER
The court orders that no certificate of appealability be issued for the court’s September
18, 2020 order denying Mr. Memmott’s motion to vacate.
DATED this 18th day of September, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
TENA CAMPBELL
U.S. District Court Judge
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?