Opinion
Nos. 3:01-CR-0294-P (01), 3:05-CV-0282-P.
April 14, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence brought by movant, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Movant is a prisoner currently incarcerated in the federal prison system. The respondent is the United States of America (government).
I. BACKGROUND
On September 12, 2001, a grand jury indicted movant of three drug offenses. On March 27, 2002, movant pled guilty to Count 1, conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. In his plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal from his conviction and sentence, and further waived his right to contest his conviction and sentence in any collateral proceeding. ( See Plea Agreement at 3.) Nevertheless, the "waiver does not apply to appeal rights from a sentence in excess of the Guideline range as determined by the Court or regarding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel." ( Id.)
On July 1, 2002, the Court sentenced movant to 240 months imprisonment. Although movant did not appeal his conviction or sentence, he filed the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in February 2005. He claims that his sentence is unlawful in that the Court made factual findings to increase the sentence in violation of Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) and United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
On April 11, 2005, the Court received a request for clarification from movant. He therein expresses concern about the status of his case and a perceived erroneous mailing by the Court. He claims that, on or about April 4, 2005, he received an order of the Court related to a co-defendant in his federal criminal action, Montreal Walker. He thus asks the Court to update the status of his § 2255 motion and to clarify whether the order in Walker's case has any relevance to his case and whether he must satisfy "some other requirements . . . to have his case proceed."
II. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Although movant perceives error in his receipt of the order related to his co-defendant's case, such receipt was not the result of error, mistake, or inadvertence of the Court. Instead, such receipt resulted from use of new software related to case management, commonly known as CM-ECF. As currently programmed, the new case management software generally causes copies of court orders to be sent to all parties in a case. Because movant and Walker are both parties to the underlying federal criminal action, movant received a copy of the order entered with respect to Walker's filing. That order has no relevance to movant's § 2255 motion or his criminal case. That order imposes no requirements for the instant § 2255 motion to proceed. In fact, the Court issues its ruling on that motion in this memorandum opinion and order.
III. SUMMARY DISMISSAL
As amended effective December 1, 2004, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts provides that "[i]f 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." Generally, "an informed and voluntary waiver of post-conviction relief is effective to bar such relief." United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), accord United States v. White, 307 F.3d 336, 343 (5th Cir. 2002). Such waiver is also sufficient to summarily dismiss a motion filed pursuant to § 2255.
In this instance, the records of the Court show that movant knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty. Movant, furthermore, does not challenge the voluntariness of his plea. By such plea, movant voluntarily waived his right to collaterally attack his conviction or sentence in a motion to vacate, except on grounds that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance or that the Court imposed a sentence in excess of the Guidelines range as determined by the Court. Thus, because movant has raised no claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or any claim that the Court imposed a sentence in excess of the applicable Guidelines range, his informed and voluntary waiver bars collateral relief in this case. In view of movant's waiver, it is clear that he is entitled to no relief on his Blakely and Booker claims. Consequently, the Court summarily dismisses this action.
IV. EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Upon review of the motion to vacate and the files and records of this case, an evidentiary hearing appears unnecessary. No evidentiary hearing is required, when "the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In this instance, the matters reviewed by the Court conclusively show that movant is entitled to no relief.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court summarily DISMISSES movant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
IT IS SO ORDERED.