Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Newport News Division

June 20, 2017

ROBERT JAYSON JONES, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Raymond A. Jackson United States District Judge.

         This matter comes before the Court on Robert Jayson Jones's ("Petitioner") pro se Motion, filed pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255 to Vacate Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody ("§ 2255 Motion"). Having thoroughly reviewed the filings in this case, the Court finds this matter is ripe for judicial determination. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's § 2255 Motions is DENIED.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         A Grand Jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned a four Count Indictment against Petitioner on November 12, 2013. ECF No. 12. Counts One and Two charged Petitioner with Distribution of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). Count Three charged Petitioner with Receipt of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). Count Four charged Petitioner with Possession of Obscene Visual Representations of the Sexual Abuse of Children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b). Petitioner pled guilty to Count Three on January 7, 2014. ECF No. 26. Petitioner was sentenced on April 9, 2014 to one hundred and eight months on Count Three, and fifteen years of supervised release. ECF No. 39.

         On December 16, 2016, Petitioner moved to vacate his .sentence pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("2255 Motion"), ECF No. 45, and to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 47. The Government filed a response on February 1, 2017. ECF No. 49. Petitioner moved for leave to withdraw his 2255 Motion. ECF No. 54. The Court granted Petitioner's Motion for leave to withdraw his 2255 Motion. ECF No. 55. Petitioner, again, filed a 2255 Motion on April 27, 2017. ECF No. 56.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         When a petitioner in federal custody wishes to collaterally attack his sentence or conviction, the appropriate motion is a § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 203 (4th Cir. 2003). Section 2255 of Title 28 of the United States Code governs post-conviction relief for federal prisoners. It provides in pertinent part:

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).

         In a proceeding to vacate a judgment of conviction, the petitioner bears the burden of proving his or her claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Miller v. United States, 261 F.2d 546, 547 (4th Cir. 1958). Motions under § 2255 "will not be allowed to do service for an appeal." Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174, 178 (1947). For this reason, issues already fully litigated on direct appeal may not be raised again under the guise of a collateral attack. Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182, 1183 (4th Cir. 1976).

         When deciding a § 2255 motion, the Court must promptly grant a hearing "unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). Whether a hearing is mandatory for a § 2255 Motion and whether petitioner's presence is required at the hearing is within the district court's sound discretion and is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970) (citing Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962)).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Petitioner argues that his sentence should be modified in light of the 2016 Amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines for §2G2.2(b)(3)(F), and Fourth Circuit precedent. Defendant also argues that his motion is timely "due to an error by the court, revealed by recent guideline amendments." ECF No. 57 at 1.

         A § 2255 motion is subject to a one-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) (2008). The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.