United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
E. PAYNE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on December 28, 2018,
the Court denied a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed
by Jeffrey A. Pleasant. United States v. Pleasant,
No. 3:08CR71, 2018 WL 6834358, at *5 (E.D. Va. Dec. 28,
2018). On October 16, 2019, the Court received from Pleasant
a motion seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b) ("Rule 60(b) Motion"). (ECF No. 1.) As
discussed below, Pleasant's Rule 60(b) will be denied
a jury trial, this Court convicted Jeffrey A. Pleasant of two
counts of interfering with commerce by threats or violence,
two counts of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a
crime of violence, two counts of possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a crime of violence, and one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See United
States v. Pleasant, 31 Fed.Appx. 91, 92 (4th Cir. 2002).
The Court "determined that Pleasant qualified as an
armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West
2000) and sentenced him to a total of 622 months
appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed Pleasant's convictions and sentence on
February 19, 2002. Id; at 93.
his direct appeal, this Court denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion by Pleasant. See United States v. Pleasant,
73 Fed.Appx. 653 (4th Cir. 2003). In the following years, the
Court denied a host of unauthorized, successive § 2255
motions filed by Pleasant. See, e.g., United
States v. Pleasant, No. 3:00CR71, 2013 WL 2950522, at *1
(E.D. Va. June 13, 2013).
April of 2017, Pleasant requested permission from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file a
successive application for § 2255 relief with this
Court. See Pleasant, 2018 WL 6834358, at *1
(citation omitted). On May 23, 2017, the Fourth Circuit
granted Pleasant permission to file a successive § 2255
Motion with this Court. See id. (citation omitted).
Pleasant had attached a copy of his proposed, successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to his request for authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion. See id.
14, 2017, the Court received from Pleasant his "MOTION
FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 AND JOHNSON V.
UNITED STATES 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015)." See id.
at *2. The Court construed this submission as his § 2255
Motion. In his § 2255 Motion, in support of Ground One,
Pleasant contended that, in light of Johnson, he was
improperly sentenced to an enhanced sentence under the Armed
Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"). Specifically,
Because the petitioner no longer has three ACCA-qualifying
convictions, he is no longer an armed career criminal. His
sentence should be vacated because Johnson
established a "new rule of constitutional law,"
that has been "made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
See id. *2 (citation omitted) . The Court found that
Ground One was barred by the relevant statute of limitations
and that Ground Two was frivolous. See id. *3-4.
Pleasant attempted to amend his § 2255 motion to add
Grounds Three through Five; however, that motion was denied
because the claims were dismissed as successive and
unauthorized. See id. *3.
noted an appeal. On May 29, 2019, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of
appealability and dismissed the appeal. United States v.
Pleasant, 767 Fed.Appx. 572 (4th Cir 2019).
RULE 60(b) MOTION
Rule 60(b) Motion, Pleasant contends that the Court should
vacate the denial of his § 2255 Motion because the:
December 28, 2018 order is void for lack of jurisdiction, the
Court did not have an authorized § 2255 before it, but ...