Collier v. United States

JAMMIE COLLIER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

4:12-cr-20148-TGB-MJH-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

March 30, 2021

HON. TERRENCE G. BERG

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

(ECF NOS. 43, 44, 45, 46)

Petitioner Jammie Collier was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) of being a felon in possession of a firearm. ECF No. 27, PageID.64. On February 12, 2013, district court Judge Mark A. Goldsmith sentenced Petitioner to a term of 34 months, which was to be served concurrently with Petitioner's state court sentence. ECF No. 27, PageID.65. The judgment was later reduced to 23 months, also to be served concurrently with the state court sentence, followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. ECF No. 32, PageID.79-80. While on supervised release, the United States Probation Department alleged that Collier violated the terms of his supervised released by (1) committing another federal, state, or local crime, and (2) positive tests for drug use. ECF No. 47, PageID.129. Following a supervised release violation hearing, this Court sentenced Petitioner to a term of 18 months and an additional 18 months of supervised release following the period of incarceration. ECF No. 47, PageID.136.

This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner's requests for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(a)(b)(6) (ECF Nos. 43, 44), 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 45), and compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (ECF No. 46). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner's motion for relief from judgment (ECF Nos. 43, 44) and motions to reduce sentence (ECF Nos. 45, 46) will be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 12, 2013, District Court Judge Mark A. Goldsmith sentenced Petitioner to a term of 34 months for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). ECF No. 27, PageID.65. The judgment was later reduced to 23 months, was to be served concurrently with the state court sentence and followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. ECF No. 32, PageID.79-80. While on supervised release, the United States Probation Department alleged that Collier violated the terms of his supervised released by (1) committing another federal, state, or local crime, and (2) positive tests for drug use. ECF No. 47, PageID.129. The first allegation was related to an arrest and subsequent charges related to a shooting and possession of a firearm. ECF No. 47, PageID.129. However, on March 16, 2017 during the supervised release violation hearing, the Government dropped the allegations related to thefederal, state, or local crime after Petitioner admitted to using controlled substances. This Court sentenced Petitioner to 18 months imprisonment for violating his supervised release by engaging in drug use and an additional 18 months of supervised release following the term of incarceration. ECF No. 47, PageID.135.

While this Court was addressing the alleged violations of his supervised release, Petitioner was awaiting a decision from the Michigan parole board because his parole was allegedly violated as a result of the alleged shooting and possession of a firearm. ECF No. 47, PageID.132. After imposing the 18 month sentence, this Court declined to decide whether the 18 month sentence would run concurrent with any anticipated¹ state charges related to the parole violation—leaving the decision "up to the parole board." ECF No. 47, PageID.137.

According to the parole violation formal hearing summary and recommendation (ECF No. 5-2), a hearing regarding Petitioner's parole violation was held on February 14, 2017 and continued on February 23, 2017. Following the presentation of evidence, it was found that Petitioner was in actual possession of a firearm and therefore had violated the terms of his parole. ECF No. 5-2, PageID.178. Petitioner was sentenced to 60months for the parole violation and was returned to MDOC custody. After his parole violation sentence, which was completed on June 10, 2020, Petitioner was transferred to BOP custody to serve the 18 month sentence that this Court imposed. According to the BOP website, he is set to be released on July 9, 2021.

II. ANALYSIS

Now before the Court are four motions requesting various forms of relief from the 18 month judgment. The Court will address each in turn.

a. Motion for Relief from Judgment

Petitioner's first and second motions request relief from judgment under Rule 60(a)(b)(6). ECF No. 43, PageID.104; ECF No. 44. Under Rule 60, a party may seek relief from a final order or judgment due to mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, void judgment, discharged or vacated judgment, or "any other reason that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(6). In both motions, Petitioner contends that this Court incorrectly imposed the 18-month supervised release violation sentence as it should have run concurrently to the MDOC parole violation sentence "in compliance with USSG 5G1.3(b)(1) & (2)." ECF No. 43, PageID. 104. If the correct standards were applied, Petitioner argues he should have been discharged from BOP custody because the federal and state sentences would have run concurrently with one another and thus would have expired.

Based on a review of the Sentencing Guidelines, the Court finds that Petitioner's argument fails. Petitioner directs the Court to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 and contends it requires that the sentences run concurrently. "That provision, however, 'does not apply to sentences imposed for violations of supervised release.'" United States v. Wright, ___ Fed. App'x ___, No. 19-6466, 2021 WL 245292, at *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2021) (quoting United States v. King, 914 F.3d 1021, 1025 n.3 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Cochrane, 702 F.3d 334, 347 n.1 (6th Cir. 2012)). Rather, "it concerns 'sentences for convictions that occur while a defendant is on supervised release, not supervised release violations itself." Id. (internal citations omitted). Here, not only did the Court sentence Petitioner for the supervised release violations itself—drug use—but there was no conviction related to the shooting and firearms because the criminal charges were dismissed. ECF No. 47, PageID.130. Because Petitioner's sentence was for a supervised release violation and not a conviction that occurred while Petitioner was on supervised release, U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 does not apply.

The proper Guideline to evaluate the sentence under is U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). Contrary to Petitioner's argument, the Guidelines generally recommend imposing consecutive sentences for supervised release violations:

[a]ny term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of probation or supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendantis serving, whether or not the sentence of imprisonment being served resulted from the conduct that is the basis of the revocation of probation or supervised release.

U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (emphasis added). See also Wright, ___ Fed. App'x ___, 2021 WL 245292 at *2.

As the Sixth Circuit has outlined, the policy set forth in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) "requires any sentence imposed for a federal supervised release or probation violation to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment, 'whether or not the sentence of imprisonment being served resulted from the conduct that is the basis of the revocation of probation or supervised release.'" United States v. Burton, 802 F. App'x 896, 909 (6th Cir. 2020). Following these Guidelines, it was appropriate for the Court to decline to assert that the federal sentence for the violation of supervised release run concurrent to any sentence for the state parole violation.

In sum, the Court finds no authority that the Sentencing Guidelines require that the 18-month sentence it imposed should have run concurrently to the state sentence because the Guidelines and Sixth Circuit guidance recommend the opposite. Both of Petitioner's motions for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5)(6) will be denied because Petitioner has failed to identify any authority requiring that his imposed sentences run concurrently.

b. 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Next, Petitioner attacks his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f). ECF No. 45, PageID.108. Petitioner raises the same argument, that according to the Sentencing Guidelines he is entitled to have both his 60-month state sentence and his 18-month federal sentence run concurrently with each other. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that the one-year limitation for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition should be excused because he has been "in transit [and] in the custody of MDOC up until 6/10/2020, [and] had no way of discovering if his state and federal sentences were being ran concurrent or not, due to his sentence computation not being complete until June of 2020." ECF No. 45, PageID.108.

An individual serving a sentence imposed by a federal court may challenge that sentence "upon the ground that [it] was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or . . . the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As relief, the prisoner may ask the court which imposed the sentence to correct, vacate, or set it aside. The law is clear that "§ 2255 claims that do not assert a constitutional or jurisdictional error are generally cognizable only if they involved 'a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.'" Snider v. United States, 908 F.3d 183, 189 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346 (1974) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). This standard is met only in"exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent." Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962) (internal...