United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Raymond A. Jackson United States District Judge.
the Court is Jamiel Edwards' ("Petitioner")
pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his
Sentence, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section
2255 ("2255 Motion"). ECF Nos. 71-72. Having
thoroughly reviewed the motions, filings, and records in this
case, the Court finds that this matter is ripe for judicial
determination. For the reasons set forth below,
Petitioner's § 2255 Motion is
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 20, 2007, a Grand Jury, in the Eastern District of
Virginia, returned a three count Indictment against
Petitioner. ECF No. 1. Count One charged Petitioner with
Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A);
Count Two charged Petitioner with Possession of a Firearm in
Furtherance of Drug Trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1); and Count Three charged Petitioner with
Felon in Possession of Firearm and Ammunition, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Id.
pled guilty to Count One of the Indictment on September 25,
2007. ECF No. 16. On March 11, 2008, Petitioner was sentenced
to 240 months on Count One, and 10 years of supervised
release. ECF No. 25.
August 1, 2016, the probation officer filed a petition
stating that Petitioner violated the terms of his supervised
release. ECF No. 48. The Court held a Supervised Release
Violation Hearing ("Supervised Release Hearing") on
February 13, 2017. ECF No. 67. The Court found Petitioner
violated the terms of his supervised release and revoked the
same. Id. The Court sentenced Petitioner to 48
months imprisonment, and imposed a term of supervised release
for 6 years. ECF No. 68.
filed this instant Motion on July 27, 2017. ECF Nos. 71-72.
The Court ordered the United States Attorney to respond to
Petitioner's § 2255 Petition. ECF No. 73. Respondent
filed a response to Petitioner's Motion on September 13,
2017. ECF No. 74. Petitioner filed a reply to
Respondent's response on October 13, 2017. ECF No. 75. On
February 26, 2018, the Court held a hearing on this matter.
ECF No. 81.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND BURDEN OF PROOF
Section 2255 Generally
petitioner may move the court to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in
four instances: (1) the sentence was imposed in violation of
the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the
District Court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence;
(3) the length of the sentence is in excess of the maximum
authorized by law; and (4) the sentence is otherwise subject
to collateral attack. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(1948). "Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved
for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow
range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct
appeal and would, if condoned, result in a complete
miscarriage of justice." Jones v. United
States, No. 4:09CV76, 2010 WL 451320, at *4 (E.D. Va.
Feb. 8, 2010) (quoting United States v. Vaughn, 955
F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992)).
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
28 U.S.C. § 2255.
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). Additionally,
pro se filers are entitled to more liberal
construction of their pleadings. Gordon v. Leeke,574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), cert, denied,439 U.S. 970 (1978) (providing that a pro se
petitioner is entitled to have his petition construed
liberally and is held to less stringent standards than an
attorney drafting such a complaint). Furthermore, if the
motion is brought before the judge that presided over the
conviction, the judge may rely upon recollections of previous
events. Blackledge v. Allison,431 U.S. 63, 74 n. 4
(1977); Carvell v. United States,173 F.2d 348,
348-49 (4th Cir. 1949) (stating it is highly desirable that