Campbell v. United States of America

Filing 2

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 6/22/2018: DENYING 1 Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to Section 2255; DISMISSING CASE with prejudice; and DENYING Certificate of Appealability. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Stepfonz Campbell at Terre Haute FCI)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
STEPFONZ CAMPBELL,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 18-CV-886-JPS
Crim. Case No. 17-CR-7-JPS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ORDER

Respondent.
Petitioner Stepfonz Campbell (“Campbell”) pleaded guilty to one
count of arson of a building resulting in injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
844(i) and 2. United States v. Stepfonz Campbell, 17-CR-7-JPS (E.D. Wis.)
(Campbell’s “Criminal Case”), (Docket #18). On October 11, 2017, the Court
sentenced him to 92 months’ imprisonment. (Criminal Case, Docket #30).
Campbell did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
On June 11, 2018, Campbell filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. (Docket #1). That motion is
now before the Court for screening:
If it plainly appears from the motion, any attached
exhibits, and the record of the prior proceedings that the
moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss
the motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party. If
the motion is not dismissed, the judge must order the United
States Attorney to file an answer, motion, or other response
within a fixed time, or to take other action the judge may
order.
Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.
Generally, the Court begins the screening process by examining the
timeliness of the motion and whether the claims therein are procedurally

defaulted. The Court need not address those matters, however, because
Campbell’s sole ground for relief is plainly meritless. Campbell says that
his due process rights were violated because he was sentenced as a career
offender and his previous convictions do not meet the standard for a “crime
of violence.” (Docket #1 at 5–9). However, Campbell was not sentenced as
a career offender. Review of the presentence report, sentencing hearing
minutes, and judgment from his Criminal Case confirms this. See (Criminal
Case, Docket #25, #28, #30). In the presentence report, the Probation Office
provided the United States Sentencing Guidelines calculation for
Campbell’s offense of conviction, and that calculation does not include a
career offender enhancement. (Criminal Case, Docket #25 at 17–18). At the
sentencing hearing, the Court adopted that Guidelines calculation for the
purpose of determining an appropriate sentence. (Criminal Case, Docket
#28 at 1). Because Campbell’s sentence was not imposed on the basis of a
career offender enhancement, his Section 2255 petition seeking to be resentenced without a career offender enhancement is plainly meritless.
Because Campbell is plainly not entitled to relief on the sole ground
presented in his motion, the Court is compelled to deny the motion and
dismiss this action with prejudice. Under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Cases, “the district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” To
obtain a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), Campbell
must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right”
by establishing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that
matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
Page 2 of 4

(2003) (internal citations omitted). No reasonable jurists could debate
whether Campbell’s motion presented a viable ground for relief. As a
consequence, the Court is compelled to deny a certificate of appealability
as to Campbell’s motion.
Finally, the Court closes with some information about the actions
that Campbell may take if he wishes to challenge the Court’s resolution of
this case. This order and the judgment to follow are final. A dissatisfied
party may appeal this Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit by filing in this Court a notice of appeal within 30 days of
the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 3, 4. This Court may extend this
deadline if a party timely requests an extension and shows good cause or
excusable neglect for not being able to meet the 30-day deadline. See Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). Moreover, under certain circumstances, a party may ask
this Court to alter or amend its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) or ask for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b). Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment. The Court cannot
extend this deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2). Any motion under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) must be filed within a reasonable time,
generally no more than one year after the entry of the judgment. The court
cannot extend this deadline. See id. A party is expected to closely review all
applicable rules and determine what, if any, further action is appropriate in
a case.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence pursuant to Section 2255 (Docket #1) be and the same
is hereby DENIED;
Page 3 of 4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is
hereby DISMISSED with prejudice; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability be and
the same is hereby DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 22nd day of June, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4