Williams v. United States of America

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 04/03/2017. Copy of mailed as directed to Plaintiff.(ccol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

IL.

Riclunond Division

APR - 3 20l7

SHANNON D. WILLIAMS,

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:16CV626

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a bench trial,
of various drug offenses,

Shannon D. Williams was convicted

three counts of murder while engaged

in a drug conspiracy, and one count of use of a firearm during
and in relation to a drug conspiracy,
was sentenced to life in prison.
85 F. App'x 341,

345

resulting in death,

and

See United States v. Williams,
The United States Court

(4th Cir. 2004).

of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed his convictions and
sentence.

Id.

By

January 20,

2006,

the Court denied Williams's 28 U.S.C.

motion.

United

3:05CV100-JRS,

Memorandum

States

v.

Opinion

Williams,

2006 WL 167659, at *6

Since that time,

and

entered
§

on

2255

3:02CR85-JRS,

Nos.

(E.D. Va.

Jan.

20,

2006).

Williams has inundated the Court with various

challenges to his conviction and sentence.
States v. Williams, No.
(E .D. Va.

Order

June 10,

2015)

3:02-CR-85-1,

See,

e.g.,

United

2015 WL 11109787, at *l-3

{dismissing a

"Motion for Declaratory

Judgment"
§

2255

and a

motions);

4759248, at *3
Writ

Rule

of

Williams

Motion as
v.

prior

as

successive,

Galindo,

(E.D. Va. Sept. 4,

Mandamus"

(outlining

60 (b)

legally

No.

2013)

3: 11CV649,

filings

2016,

Court

2013

WL

(dismissing "Motion for

frivolous} ;

frivolous

unauthorized

see

seeking

also

his

id.

at

release

*1

from

incarceration} .
On July 26,
"Complaint

for

the

Declaratory

("Complaint, " ECF No.
is not a 28 U.S.C.

§

1. }

received a

Judgment

document

Fed.

R.

Civ.

However,

f rem

P.

57"

Williams indicates that "this action

2255, nor a successive § 2255" and that he

"does not seek to contest his conviction or sentence."
1. }

titled,

the

contents

of

the

Complaint,

(Id. at
the

Court

discerns that Williams challenges the interpretation of one of
his statutes of conviction,

21 U.S.C.

§

848(e), the statute that

criminalizes murder while engaged in a drug conspiracy involving
(Id.

at 3-8.)

Williams

third prong of

21 U. s. C.

more than 50 grams of cocaine base.
asks

the Court

848 (e) (1) (A}
the

to

\\declare

that

the

is ambiguous" because he "continues to suffer from

effects of

an ambiguous

constitutional concerns."

statute,

which

also

raised other

(Id. at 9.)

Williams' s Complaint once again challenges the validity of
his

conviction.

As

explained

below,

treated as a successive, unauthorized 28

2

the

Complaint

u.s.c.

§

must

2255 motion.

be

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
restricted

the

second

successive

or

jurisdiction

of

the

applications

district
for

courts

federal

to

habeas

hear

corpus

relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions
and sentences by establishing a "gatekeeping mechanism."
v.

Turpin,

518 U.S.

omitted) .

651,

657

Specifically,

{1996)

"[b]efore

Felker

{internal quotation marks
a

second

or

successive

application permitted by this section is filed in the district
court,

the

applicant

shall

move

in

the

appropriate

court

of

appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider
the application."
The
avoid

Fourth

the

v.

u.s.c.

Circuit
on

and

sentences

Wines tock,

§

has

bar

convictions
States

28

2244 {b) {3) {A).
instructed

successive

340

by

collateral

inventive

F. 3d 200,

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

that

attacks

labeling.

206

(4th

Det.

Ctr.,

motion

for

451

(5th Cir.

911 F. 2d 1111,
a

new

prohibition,

coram

certiorari,

capias,

impedit . .
name

makes

Cir.

may

not

on

their

See

United

2003) .

A

2255 "'provides the primary means

§

of collateral attack on a federal sentence.'"
218 F.3d 448,

inmates

2000)
1113

Yusuf f,

(quoting Cox v. Warden,

(5th Cir.

trial,

arrest

nobis,

co ram

of

1990) ) .

Fed.

"Call it a

judgment,

vobis,

corpus,

habeas

Pack v.

mandamus,
querela,

audita
ejectment,

quare

or an application for a Get-out-of-Jail Card; the
no

difference.

It
3

is

substance

that

controls."

Melton

v.

United

States,

(citation omitted) .

359

F.3d

"Any motion

855,

filed

857
in

(7th

2004)

district

the

Cir.

court

that imposed the sentence, and substantively within the scope of
§ 2255[(a)],

is a motion under§ 2255, no matter what title the

prisoner plasters on the cover. "

Id.

{citing Ramunno v. United

States, 264 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 2001)).
As

outlined

challenges
falls

one

above,

of

the

statutes

squarely within

Gonzalez v.

Crosby,

Williams's

the

of

which he

ambit of

545 U.S.

524,

Complaint

28

was

U.S.C.

530-32

once

again

convicted and
2255 (a).

§

(2005)

See

(construing a

motion as a successive "habeas corpus application" if it "seeks
vindication" of "a claim" for relief from the criminal judgment,
regardless
Williams,
court's

of

the

title

of

621 F. App'x 212,
dismissal

of

the

212

as a

successive

received

authorization

prior

"Motion

from

the

Fourth

to file a successive § 2255 motion.
No. 3:02CR85-JRS
Accordingly,
motion

(ECF

(E.D.

Va.

Aug.

and

will

jurisdiction.
4

Declaratory

to

hear

a

on August 2,

most recent request

United States v. Williams,
2,

be

for

Circuit

2016)

the Complaint is construed as a
No. 1)

v.

(affirming this

Indeed,

the Fourth Circuit denied Williams' s

States

The Court has not

§ 2255 motion) .

successive § 2255 motion from Williams.
2016,

United

{4th Cir. 2015)

Williams' s

Judgment"

motion);

ECF

I

No.

successive

dismissed

for

268.
§

want

2255
of

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

2255

§

proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability
{ "COA"} .

28

U.S.C.

§

2253 {c} {l) {B}.

A COA will

not

issue

unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of
a

constitutional

requirement

is

debate whether
should have
issues

satisfied
{or,

been

only

were

proceed further.'"

in a

"reasonable

to

agree that}

Williams

satisfy

463 U.S.
this

880,

could

the petition

manner or

deserve

This

jurists

that

encouragement

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
Estelle,

to

2253 {c) {2}.

§

different

'adequate

(quoting Barefoot v.
fails

when

for that matter,

resolved

presented

u.s.c.

28

right."

893

standard.

&

484

n.4

the
to

{2000)

(1983}}.

Accordingly,

a

certificate of appealability will be denied.
The

Clerk

is

directed

to

send a

copy of

the

Memorandum

Opinion to Williams.
It is so ORDERED.

/s/
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date:

~~I ~t7

5