United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
JAMES R. SPENCER, Senior District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se Petitioner Yhine Hines' "Request Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3)" ("§ 2255 Motion") (ECF No. 588). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the § 2255 Motion.
a. Factual Background
According to information contained in the Government's file, from at least 1992 until 2001, a criminal organization known as the "Fulton Hill Hustlers" or "FHH" engaged in the distribution of cocaine base, and committed acts of violence, primarily in the Richmond and Henrico County, Virginia areas. Petitioner, Yhine Hines ("Hines"), was engaged in the conspiracy to distribute cocaine base from 1993 until 2001. Hines was a "street level distributor." Additionally, Hines was present during the murder of Lionel Patron ("Patron") on July 16, 1997. Hines encouraged one of his co-conspirators to shoot Patron and assisted in wiping fingerprints from the apartment after the murder.
b. Procedural Background
On October 16, 2001, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned a one-count indictment against Hines. A Superseding Indictment on November 20, 2001 charged Hines with (1) violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); and (2) conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
Hines subsequently entered into a Plea Agreement with the United States, wherein he would plead guilty to Count Two of the Superseding Indictment and the United States would move to dismiss Count One. On March 11, 2002, Hines pleaded guilty to Count Two. On May 30, 2002, this Court sentenced Hines to 300 months' imprisonment, five years' supervised release, a $100 special assessment, and $5, 662.23 in restitution. Hines did not appeal his sentence. On June 18, 2003, the Court granted a motion by the United States to reduce Hines' sentence.
On August 9, 2013, Hines filed the instant § 2255 Motion. In his § 2255 Motion, Hines alleges one ground for relief:
Ground One: Violation of the rule of criminal procedure announced in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013).
The United States filed a response in opposition on September 20, 2013 ("Opp'n Mem.") (ECF No. 591), and Hines subsequently filed a reply on October 17, 2013 ("Reply Mem.") (ECF No. 592). The issue is now ripe for review.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("§ 2255"), a prisoner in federal custody may attack his sentence on four grounds: (1) the sentence violates the Constitution or the laws of the United States; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by law; or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack. § 2255(a); see also Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 426-27 (1962). A claim which does not challenge the constitutionality of a sentence or the court's jurisdiction is cognizable in a § 2255 motion only if the alleged violation constitutes a "miscarriage of justice." United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979). To prevail under § 2255, the movant bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Miller v. United States, 261 F.2d 546, 547 (4th Cir. 1958); United States v. King, 36 F.Supp.2d 705, 707 (E.D. Va. 1999). A pro se ...