Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_01-cv-00085/USCOURTS-ared-4_01-cv-00085-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 WESTERN DIVISION

DWAYNE H. SMITH PETITIONER

vs. CASE NO. 4:01CV00085GH

 4:95CR00019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT

ORDER

On June 3, 1996, a jury found petitioner guilty of aiding and abetting an interstate murderfor-hire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (a) and 2. He was sentenced on December 11, 1996, to

life imprisonment. He appealed his conviction to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which

affirmed his conviction on August 8, 1997. United States v. Davidson, 122 F.3d 531 (8th Cir.

1997). 

On June 21, 1999, the Court granted petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court found that petitioner’s trial counsel had provided ineffective

assistance of counsel in failing to argue that petitioner should be sentenced under the version of

section 1958 in effect at the time the offense was committed, which authorized a sentence for any

term of years or for life, rather than the subsequent amendment which provided for life

imprisonment when death results.

Petitioner was resentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed that sentence to the Eighth

Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Court’s judgment. United States v. Smith, 232 F. 3d

650 (8th Cir. 2000). Petitioner then filed another motion to set aside, vacate, or correct sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The Court, on June 10, 2001, entered judgment denying the § 2255 motion. 

Case 4:01-cv-00085-GH Document 6 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

Petitioner has now filed a motion to recall the mandate, stating that his sentence was

unconstitutionally enhanced. There is no basis for recalling the mandate or reconsidering the

Order denying the § 2255 motion. The Court previously addressed, and found without merit,

petitioner's assertion that there was no interstate commerce nexus. Petitioner's arguments regarding

racial discrimination in jury selection should have been raised in the original petition, and

petitioner is precluded from raising them now. Furthermore, any arguments based on United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) are barred because Booker is not applicable to criminal

convictions that became final before Booker. Never Misses a Shot v. United States, 413 F. 3d 781,

783 (8th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration and to recall the mandate (document no. 5) is

denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2006.

_________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:01-cv-00085-GH Document 6 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 2