Opinion
21-cr-20464 24- cv-10482
10-15-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. JAMES HINTON, Defendant/Petitioner.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF NO. 38)
HON. SEAN F. COX UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Petitioner James Hinton was convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition as felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), pursuant to a plea agreement. Hinton now moves the Court to vacate that conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. “District courts must hold an evidentiary hearing on motions under § 2255 ‘unless the record conclusively shows that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.'” Villa v. United States, 56 F.4th 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2023) (quoting Martin v. United States, 889 F.3d 827, 832 (6th Cir. 2018)).
According to Hinton, § 922(g)(1) is a facially unconstitutional restriction on his Second Amendment rights. And, Hinton says, constitutionally effective counsel would not have advised him to plead guilty to violating such a patently unconstitutional law. Ineffective-assistance claims require a showing that counsel's conduct was professionally unreasonable and prejudiced the defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Hinton's challenges fail because, as the Sixth Circuit recently explained in United States v. Williams, § 922(g)(1) “is not susceptible to a facial challenge.” 113 F.4th 637, 657 (6th Cir. 2024). And Williams tracks post-Bruen developments in this Court. See, e.g., United States v. Nelson, 680 F.Supp.3d 827, 832-35 (E.D. Mich. 2023); see also New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
Because § 922(g)(1) is a facially constitutional, Hinton's conviction did not violate the Second Amendment. For the same reason, any professionally unreasonable conduct by Hinton's counsel did not prejudice him. And the record definitively shows these things. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction under § 2255 (ECF No. 38) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.