United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division
MARK J. JONES, SR., Petitioner
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
G. DOUMAN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on the Motion for a Certificate
of Appealability, ECF No. 212, Motion for Reconsideration,
ECF No. 213, Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No.
229, and Motion to Reduce Sentence, ECF No. 230, all filed by
Mark J. Jones ("Petitioner"). For the reasons set
forth below, the Court DENIES or DISMISSES all of these
April 27, 2015, Petitioner pled guilty to three counts of a
modified criminal information. ECF No. 52; see also
Plea Agreement, ECF No. 55; Statement of Facts, ECF No. 56.
Counts One and Two of the criminal information charged
Petitioner with Mail Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1341, and Count Three charged Petitioner with Aggravated
Identity Theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).
Criminal Information, ECF No. 53.
December 7, 2015, this Court sentenced Petitioner to 126
months of imprisonment. Sentencing Hr'g, ECF No. 155; J.,
ECF No. 158. Consistent with his plea agreement, Petitioner
did not file an appeal. See Plea Agreement ¶ 5 (waiving
right to appeal conviction or sentence).
February 29, 2016, Petitioner filed his first Motion Under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence
by a Person in Federal Custody (his "Initial § 2255
Motion") and an accompanying memorandum in support. ECF
Nos. 173-74. Petitioner asserted four grounds for relief in
his motion and memorandum. Id. On March 7, 2016,
this Court ordered the government to respond to
Petitioner's Initial § 2255 Motion within sixty (60)
days. Order, ECF No. 175. On March 29, 2016, before the
government had responded to Petitioner's Initial §
2255 Motion, Petitioner filed a supplemental brief, wherein
he asserted an additional ground, his fifth, for §2255
relief. ECF No. 179.
5, 2016, the government responded to Petitioner's Initial
§ 2255 Motion and also addressed the new ground for
relief raised by his supplemental brief. ECF No. 181. On May
18, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel a Response from
the Government and Supplemental Pleading Expanding the Record
on Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion. ECF No.
185. Within this filing, Petitioner moved the Court to compel
the government to respond to his Initial § 2255 Motion
and asserted an additional ground, his sixth, for § 2255
relief. Id. In a May 18, 2016 Order, this Court
denied the Motion to Compel because the government had in
fact responded to Petitioner's Initial § 2255
Motion. Order, ECF No. 186. In an abundance of caution, the
Court extended the time for Petitioner to reply to the
government's response. Id. The Court also
explained to Petitioner that § 2255 Motions were treated
like civil lawsuits and that Petitioner could amend his
petition by right only once, a right exercised by Petitioner
with his first Supplemental Brief. Id. However, the
Court informed Petitioner that it would consider the sixth
ground for § 2255 relief that he raised along with his
Motion to Compel. Id. The Court also gave the
government a chance to reply to this new ground for relief
and gave Petitioner the right to reply to the
government's response. Id. The Court informed
Petitioner that he could not amend or supplement his Initial
§ 2255 Motion further without leave of this Court.
23, 2013, Petitioner replied to the government's
response. ECF No. 187. On June 15, 2016 the government
responded to the new ground for relief raised by Petitioner
in his Motion to Compel. ECF No. 189. On June 22, 2016,
Petitioner replied to that response. ECF No. 193. Petitioner
did not limit his reply to the contents of the
government's response to his sixth ground for § 2255
relief, but made arguments concerning all six grounds for
§ 2255 relief that he had raised. Id.
addition to the various amendments and supplements to his
Initial § 2255 Motion, Petitioner made several motions
in which he asked to subpoena witnesses and documents, to
otherwise conduct discovery in support of his Initial §
2255 Motion, and to have the government respond to his
discovery motions. ECF Nos. 188, 197, and 205. Because the
merit or lack of merit of these motions depended on the
Court's consideration of Petitioner's pleadings in
support of his Initial § 2255 Motion, the Court did not
ask the government to respond to them.
September 6, 2016, the Court denied Petitioner's Initial
§ 2255 Motion and all other motions pending before the
Court at that time. ECF No. 175. The Court declined to issue
Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Id. at
October 17, 2016 Petitioner filed a Motion Requesting a
Certificate of Appealability and a Motion for
Reconsideration. ECF Nos. 212, 213. But, on the same day,
Petitioner filed a Notice of appeal. ECF No. 214. On February
28, 2017, the Fourth Circuit also denied Petitioner a
certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. ECF
March 6, 2017, the Fourth Circuit docketed a motion made by
Petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 that requested an
order authorizing this Court to consider a second or
successive application for relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. See ECF No. 227. On March 27, 2017, the Fourth Circuit
denied that motion. Id.
on May 1, 2017, Petitioner filed a Supplemental motion for
Reconsideration, purporting to amend his October 17, 2017
Motion for Reconsideration to include an argument based on a
new Supreme Court ruling. ECF No. 229. On May 11, 2017,
Petitioner filed a Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18