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
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?