United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
TERRENCE S. RIDDLE, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Amended Motion
for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. §2255 (ECF #147). Respondent
filed a Request to File Brief Instanter Pending
Beckles Decision (ECF #151). Petitioner filed a
Motion to Reconsider Holding Case in Abeyance (ECF#152).
Respondent filed a Response in Opposition to Petitioner's
Motion for Relief. (ECF#153). For the following reasons, the
Court denies Petitioner's Petition.
12, 2004, Petitioner was charged with five others in a
24-count Superseding Indictment. Pursuant to his written Plea
Agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Possess
with Intent to Distribute Heroin. The Presentence
Investigation Report concluded that Petitioner qualified as a
Career Offender based on his prior convictions. At his
sentencing hearing on April 25, 2005, the Court found that
Petitioner was a Career Offender with a Base Offense Level of
34 and a Criminal History of VI. The Career Offender
designation was based on Petitioner's prior convictions
for Burglary and Drug Trafficking in Ohio. The Court
sentenced Petitioner to 188 months imprisonment and six years
of Supervised Release.
filed a pro se Appeal on January 10, 2006, which the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed sua sponte
as untimely on March 20, 2006. Petitioner filed a Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 on April 25, 2006. The Court held that Petitioner's
conviction and sentence were valid and his §2255 Motion
was denied on June 26, 2008.
26, 2016, Petitioner filed a Successive Motion for Relief
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming that based on
Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), his
sentence must be vacated and his case set for re-sentencing
because he was no longer properly designated as a Career
Offender. Petitioner's Motion was transferred to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Sixth Circuit
subsequently granted Petitioner leave to file a Second or
Successive Motion with the District Court.
August 30, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant Amended Motion
for Relief asserting that his sentence should be vacated
pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson
v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015).
2255 of Title 28, United States Code, provides:
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
order to prevail upon a §2255 motion, the movant must
allege as a basis for relief: ‘(1) an error of
constitutional magnitude; (2) a sentence imposed outside the
statutory limits; or (3) an error of fact or law that was so
fundamental as to render the entire proceeding invalid.
'” Mallett v. United States, 334 F.3d
496-497 (6th Cir. 2003), quoting Weinberger v. United
States, 268 F.3d 346, 351 (6th Cir.2001).
correctly concludes that the Supreme Court's decision in
Johnson does not entitle Petitioner to
post-conviction relief from his Career Offender Sentencing
Guidelines-based sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Johnson does not apply to Guidelines-based sentences
in Section 2255 or other collateral attack actions because,
as to the Guidelines, Johnson is a non-watershed new
procedural rule that does not apply retroactively under
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).
Court agrees that Johnson does not apply
retroactively on collateral attack in Sentencing Guidelines
cases because it creates procedural rather than substantive
changes in the sentencing process. Under Teague v.
Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 311 (1989) (plurality opinion) and
its progeny, new rules of criminal procedure do not apply