United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Docs. 144,
S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Mtu Akili seeks to be resentenced under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b).Akili also moves for
appointment of counsel to assist him with his Rule 60(b)
following reasons, the Court TRANSFERS Akili's Rule 60(b)
motion to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court also
DENIES AS MOOT Akili's motion for appointment of counsel.
February 11, 1994, a jury found Akili guilty of possession of
cocaine with intent to distribute. On June 10, 1994, Judge
David D. Dowd Jr. sentenced Akili to 264 months of
imprisonment after finding Akili qualified as a career
offender under the sentencing guidelines, which were
mandatory at the time.
Sixth Circuit affirmed Akili's conviction on June 14,
1995. Akili did not file a petition for writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court.
September 10, 1996, Judge David D. Dowd Jr. denied
Akili's first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas
petition. On September 22, 2016, the Sixth Circuit
granted Akili's motion to file a second and successive
§ 2255 petition. This Court denied that habeas petition on
April 14, 2017. In its denial, the Court held that
Akili's arguments for resentencing under Johnson v.
United States were foreclosed by the Supreme Court's
later decision in Beckles v. United
Rule 60(b) motion, Akili appears to seek relief from the
Court's denial of his second § 2255 habeas
petition. Akili also seeks appointment of counsel
to assist with his motion. The government opposes both
initial matter, the Court treats Akili's motion as a
successive habeas petition.
collateral proceedings context, courts must decide whether a
Rule 60(b) motion is effectively a successive habeas
petition. A Rule 60(b)(6) motion that
“attacks the federal court's previous resolution of
a [habeas] claim on the merits” should be
considered a successive § 2255 petition. District
courts lack the jurisdiction to hear successive § 2255
petitions without court of appeals
Akili seeks “resentencing pursuant to a due process
expectation from being classified as a career
offender.” Defendant appears to challenge this
Court's denial of his second § 2255 petition because
of Beckles. As a result, Defendant's Rule
60(b)(6) motion is a successive petition and the Court
transfers it to the Sixth Circuit.
the Court were to consider the merits, there would be no
basis to grant relief.
denying Defendant's § 2255 petition, the Court held
that Defendant could not be resentenced under Johnson v.
United States, which invalidated sentences based on
felonies that qualified under the residual clause of the
Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA). The Court reasoned that
Johnson did not apply to Defendant's sentence
because Defendant was sentenced under the Guidelines, not the
ACCA's residual clause. Citing to Beckles v.
United States, the Court held that the Guidelines'