Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-13-02685/USCOURTS-ca6-13-02685-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0163n.06

Case No. 13-2685

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

THELMON F. STUCKEY, III,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

MICHIGAN

BEFORE: SILER, ROGERS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

COOK, Circuit Judge. Thelmon Stuckey appeals the district court’s denial of his motion 

to amend his federal habeas petition. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.

A jury convicted Stuckey, a leader and “enforcer” of a violent drug gang, of murder to 

prevent a person from providing information concerning a federal crime to federal authorities 

under the federal witness-tampering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512. An eyewitness to the murder

testified at trial that Stuckey shot Darbins, a member of Stuckey’s drug organization, eleven 

times before bending over his body, kissing him, and saying “that he loved him . . . but he talked 

too much.” United States v. Stuckey, 253 F. App’x 468, 474–75 (6th Cir. 2007). We affirmed 

Stuckey’s murder conviction. See id. at 492.

 Case: 13-2685 Document: 38-2 Filed: 03/02/2015 Page: 1
Case No. 13-2685

Stuckey v. United States

- 2 -

Years later, Stuckey moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, relying in his 

proposed amended petition on the Supreme Court’s decision in Fowler v. United States, 131 S. 

Ct. 2045 (2011). Fowler, he argued, rendered his murder conviction invalid “because the 

government was required to prove more than just a possibility that Darbins would have 

cooperated with federal authorities.” The district court rejected Stuckey’s proposed amendment

as futile because Fowler, as the court understood it, would not support Stuckey’s claim. This 

court granted Stuckey a certificate of appealability to determine whether the district court 

properly denied his motion to amend.

Though we ordinarily review a district court’s denial of a motion to amend for abuse of 

discretion, we review de novo when, as here, the court denies the motion because amendment 

would be futile. Bennett v. MIS Corp., 607 F.3d 1076, 1100 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Parry v. 

Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2000)). 

Stuckey’s argument stems from a misreading of Fowler. Fowler concerned the federal 

nexus requirement for convictions under the witness-tampering statute when the defendant acts 

with an intent to prevent communication to law enforcement officers in general. To establish 

such a nexus, Fowler requires proof of a “reasonable likelihood” that at least one hypothetical 

communication (by Darbins) would have been made to a federal (as opposed to state) law 

enforcement officer. 131 S. Ct. at 2052. Here, the federal investigation into Stuckey’s drug 

organization led to Darbins’s federal indictment, and interest in getting Darbins to cooperate 

prompted the FBI’s search for him that uncovered his murder. Had Darbins communicated with

law enforcement, “it is reasonably likely . . . that a federal law enforcement officer would have 

been on the receiving end of this communication.” (R. 336, Op. & Order at 20.)

 Case: 13-2685 Document: 38-2 Filed: 03/02/2015 Page: 2
Case No. 13-2685

Stuckey v. United States

- 3 -

As the government notes, Stuckey tries to import the “reasonable likelihood standard[]

from its proper place in proving a federal nexus where that is unclear, to a requirement to prove 

the victim’s intent.” That is, Stuckey reads Fowler as requiring the government to show a 

reasonable likelihood that Darbins would have, in fact, communicated with a federal officer had 

he survived. But Fowler requires no such showing. The district court thus properly concluded 

that amendment would be futile. We AFFIRM.

 Case: 13-2685 Document: 38-2 Filed: 03/02/2015 Page: 3