Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00926/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00926-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

GEORGE HOEY MORRIS, ) 

 ) 

 Petitioner, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CASE NO. 2:11-cv-926-WHA 

 ) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) (WO) 

 ) 

 Respondent. ) 

ORDER

 This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #60), 

entered on June 30, 2014, Petitioner’s objections thereto (Doc. #65), filed on August 13, 2014, 

and the Government’s response (Doc. #71), filed on November 24, 2014. The court has 

conducted an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case, and finds as 

follows: 

 On April 25, 2014, Morris filed a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. #57), and the 

Magistrate Judge entered an order on the same day (Doc. #58) denying the motion. No objection 

was filed to that order before the Recommendation was entered over two months later. In the 

objection filed on August 13, 2014, Morris, through counsel, again requested an evidentiary 

hearing. In addition to there having been no timely objection to the denial of the Motion for 

Evidentiary Hearing, the court finds no legal basis to require an evidentiary hearing at this stage. 

See, e.g., US v. Laetividal-Gonzalez, 939 F.2d 1455, 1465 (11th Cir. 1991). The request is 

denied. 

George Hoey Morris, through counsel, objects to the Recommendation that his 

Case 2:11-cv-00926-WHA-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 5
2 

' 2255 motion be denied. Although the Objections are filed by counsel, they appear to 

include some of Morris=s own arguments. (The Magistrate Judge ordered that Morris and 

his counsel combine all objections to the Recommendation in a single filing (Doc. #64). 

1. Morris first objects to the Recommendation=s inclusion of a quoted recitation of 

the charges against him, as they were set forth in part of the indictment. (Objections at 

pp. 1-5.) He says these facts were immaterial and irrelevant. Some of the facts, he says, 

were not proved by the Government=s evidence. In some instances, he takes exception to 

the veracity of these facts, insisting his own version is correct. He wants the recitation of 

the charges excised from the Recommendation. 

The Recommendation identifies these matters as AThe Charges Against Morris@

and plainly states that they are the facts alleged in the indictment. As stated in the 

Recommendation, a recital of these charges was useful in assessing the claims in Morris=s 

' 2255 motion that followed in the Recommendation. As noted, these matters were 

quoted from the indictment. They clearly were not the Magistrate Judge=s findings 

regarding the evidence presented at trial. They simply provide help in understanding 

Morris=s ' 2255 claims. Morris=s argument for excising them from the Recommendation 

is not persuasive. 

2. Morris next objects to the Recommendation=s determination that Claims 5, 8, 

11, 12, 20, and 22 in his ' 2255 motion are procedurally barred from review by this court 

because they were raised by Morris in a pro se filing with the Eleventh Circuit, discussed 

by the Eleventh Circuit in its opinion affirming his conviction, and found to be without 

merit. (Objections at pp.5-17.) 

Case 2:11-cv-00926-WHA-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/09/14 Page 2 of 5
3 

The court finds that the Recommendation is correct in finding these claims not to 

be reviewable by this court. The Eleventh Circuit=s opinion addressed the claims by 

Morris=s appellate counsel and Morris=s pro se claims. Morris is effectively asking this 

court to review the Eleventh Circuit=s rulings on his pro se claims. Furthermore, if this 

court were to proceed as if Morris=s pro se claims were not presented to and ruled on by 

the Eleventh Circuit, the claims would be subject to another procedural bar B i.e., as 

claims that could have been, but were not, raised on direct appeal. However, the 

Recommendation correctly determines these claims could not be relitigated and reviewed 

in the ' 2255 proceeding because they had already been ruled upon by the Eleventh 

Circuit. 

3. Morris next objects to the Recommendation=s finding he did not set forth cause 

for his failure to raise on direct appeal Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 13, 15-19, and 21-23 in his 

' 2255 motion. (Objections at pp. 17-20.) Morris now asserts that his cause for failure to 

raise the claims was Aprosecutorial misconduct.@ (Objections at p. 17.) This ground for 

Acause@ was not made clear in Morris=s ' 2255 motion. Moreover, the alleged 

Aprosecutorial misconduct@ was really the underlying premise for each of these claims, 

and not the alleged Acause@ for Morris=s failure to raise them on direct appeal. Morris has 

not attempted to demonstrate how Aprosecutorial misconduct@ prevented him from raising 

the claims on direct appeal. The reason they were not raised on direct appeal is that they 

are (pro se) allegations Morris decided to raise after his appeal. The Recommendation 

correctly finds that Morris did not attempt to demonstrate cause for his failure to raise 

these claims on appeal. 

Case 2:11-cv-00926-WHA-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/09/14 Page 3 of 5
4 

The Recommendation does find that Morris attempts to obtain review of these 

otherwise defaulted claims by alleging his actual innocence. The court finds that the 

Recommendation correctly addresses the actual innocence issue on pp. 16-19, with which 

the court agrees. 

 4. Finally, Morris objects to the Recommendation=s finding that his counsel was 

not ineffective for failing to object to the jury instruction involving Vietnamese law on 

marriage and for failing to object to the use of an allegedly improper predicate felony for 

purposes of ' 922(g)(1). (Objections at pp. 20-24.) These ineffective assistance claims 

were fully discussed in the Magistrate Judge=s Recommendation, finding that (1) Morris 

demonstrated no error in the district court=s jury instruction regarding when females in 

Vietnam could legally marry in 1999,1

 and (2) Morris could not demonstrate that he was 

 1

 The Government=s Response to Morris=s Objections addresses this objection as follows: 

In his objection, Petitioner reiterates his position that his marriage to the 

minor victim was and is an absolute defense to Counts 1-4 of the Indictment. 

(Doc. 65 at p. 20) Further, he now argues that as the Appellate Court has already 

determined counsel=s failure to object to the jury instruction to be Ainvited error,@

the first prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984) is met. 

Petitioner concludes his argument with the conclusory statement that he Awould 

not have been found guilty if the jury knew the truth about the status of 

Vietnamese Marriage Law.@ (Doc. 65 at p. 23) presumably, establishing the 

second prong of Strickland. 

Petitioner=s objection is clearly premised on the faulty belief that the 

Appellate Court, in finding Ainvited error,@ found that the jury instruction was in 

error. As the Court is aware, the Appellate Court=s opinion on the issue is 

procedural not substantive. The Appellate Court did not consider the substance of 

the jury instruction, only that the Petitioner did not object to the jury instruction. 

In short, the Appellate Court=s opinion has no bearing on the question of whether 

counsel was ineffective. 

Counsel was not ineffective because the Vietnamese marriage law utilized 

by the district court in fashioning the jury instruction was a proper statement of 

Case 2:11-cv-00926-WHA-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/09/14 Page 4 of 5
5 

prejudiced by his trial counsel=s failure to raise a claim regarding the predicate felony 

conviction underlying his ' 922(g)(1) conviction.2

 The court agrees.

 For the foregoing reasons, the court finds the objections to be without merit, and they are 

hereby OVERRULED. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it 

is hereby 

 ORDERED that this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is DENIED with prejudice. Judgment will 

be entered accordingly. 

 DONE this 9th day of December, 2014. 

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

 W. HAROLD ALBRITTON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

the law. Because the jury instruction was proper, Petitioner=s oft reiterated 

position that he was legally married and therefor unjustly convicted is without 

merit. As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner=s claim fails because 

counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to argue a meritless issue. (Doc. 60 at 

pages 26-27) 

Doc. No. 70 at 6-7. 

2

 Morris=s appellate counsel raised this substantive issue regarding the predicate felony on 

direct appeal, and the Eleventh Circuit denied relief. After quoting the appellate court=s 

discussion of this issue, the Magistrate Judges=s Recommendation finds as follows regarding 

Morris=s ineffective-trial-counsel claim: 

From the appellate court=s discussion of this issue, it is evident that no precedent 

existed on the issue at the time of Morris=s trial. Thus, Morris cannot demonstrate 

that he would have prevailed if the issue had been directly presented to the district 

court. Because there was no precedent upon which Morris=s trial counsel could 

have relied to argue successfully that Morris=s 1980 Colorado conviction did not 

qualify as a predicate felony for purposes of ' 922(g)(1), Morris cannot 

demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel=s failure to raise this issue. 

Morris is entitled to no relief based on this claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. 

Doc. No. 60 at 29. The court agrees. 

Case 2:11-cv-00926-WHA-SRW Document 72 Filed 12/09/14 Page 5 of 5