Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Board v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

July 30, 2019

ANTHONY J. BOARD, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          DAN AARON POLSTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This case is before the Court upon the Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (“Motion”). Doc #: 51. For the following reasons, the Motion is summarily dismissed.

         I. Background

         On February 8, 2017, Anthony J. Board, Jr., pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of possession with the intent to distribute fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Doc #: 11. On December 1, 2017, Board was sentenced to a prison term of 63 months for each count, to run concurrently. Doc #: 34 at 2. Board appealed, challenging a sentencing enhancement for felon in possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) and the Bureau of Prison's alleged failure to credit his previously-served jail time. Doc #: 35. The Court of Appeals affirmed Board's conviction and sentence. Doc #: 46. Board now brings the instant Motion. Doc #: 51.

         II. Standard

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), a federal district court may grant relief to a prisoner in custody under a sentence imposed by that court:

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 a sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).

         Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings requires the judge to whom the 2255 petition is assigned to properly examine the petition. Rule 4(b) provides in pertinent part as follows:

If it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party. If the motion is not dismissed, the judge must order the United States attorney to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to take other action the judge may order.

         Appendix C. Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, 6 Orfield's Criminal Procedure Under the Federal Rules Appendix C. The Court has promptly examined the Motion, the record in the underlying criminal case, and the case law and finds that it plainly appears that Anthony J. Board, Jr. is not entitled to relief in the district court for the following reasons.

         III. Analysis

         Both of Board's grounds for relief stem from ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Claims for ineffective assistance of counsel are analyzed under the standard in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must establish two elements: (1) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficiency, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Lance v. Sellers, 139 S.Ct. 511, 514, 202 L.Ed.2d 621 (2019) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688). A review of counsel's performance must be highly deferential and requires the courts to “indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within a wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Monzo v. Edwards, 281 F.3d 568, 579 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689).

         In his first ground for relief, Board argues that his counsel wrongfully withdrew his objection to the four-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), thereby waiving his right to pursue the issue on appeal. Doc #: 51-1 at 6. “The § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement applies to defendants who ‘used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense'” when “the firearm or ammunition ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.