Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 4:02cr65-RH

vs. Case No. 4:08cv78-RH/WCS

TRENTON DENORM GREEN,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY § 2255 MOTION

Defendant Trenton Green, through counsel, filed a motion to vacate, set aside or

correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 114. The Government filed a

response in opposition, and Defendant filed a rebuttal. Docs. 118 and 119. 

Procedural History 

Defendants Green and Harris were charged with armed robbery of approximately

$40,360 from the FSH (Florida State Hospital) Employees Credit Union in Quincy, the

deposits of which were insured by the National Credit Union Administration Board, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 2113(a), 2113(d), and 2 (count one). Doc. 1. They were also

charged with using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to the armed robbery

Case 4:02-cr-00065-RH-CAS Document 120 Filed 03/27/09 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6

1

 Count two actually referenced § § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 942(c)(1)(A)(ii), but it was

confirmed at rearraignment that the number had been transposed and this was a

typographical error. Doc. 69, pp. 11-12. Defense counsel waived any defect with

respect to the typographical error. Id., pp. 13-14. There was also concern that the

indictment did not specify brandishing the firearm but cited the statute for brandishing a

firearm (which carried a minimum of seven rather than five years). Defendant was

advised that he could waive the defect or require the Government to go back to the

grand jury, and he decided to waive it and try to cooperate with the Government. Doc.

65, pp. 14-20. The § 2255 argument does not concern the brandishing aspect of the

charge. 

2

 In 2005 Defendant filed a motion for reduction for substantial assistance,

claiming bad faith by the Government. The court denied the motion, and denial was

Case Nos. 4:02cr65-RH and 4:08cv78-RH/WCS

(as charged in count one) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924(c)(1)(A)(ii),

and 2 (count two). Id.1 

Defendant entered into a plea and cooperation agreement with the Government. 

Doc. 46. The decision of whether to file a substantial assistance motion was left to the

sole discretion of the United States Attorney. Id., pp. 5-6. A factual basis for the plea

was filed. Doc. 45. At the rearraignment proceeding it was noted that Defendant did

not sign the statement of facts, but he told the court he had read it line by line and word

by word, and everything in it was true. Doc. 69 (transcript), p. 9. Defendant told the

court he read the plea and cooperation agreement line by line and word by word, and

understood and agreed with every word of it. Id., pp. 23-24. The court accepted

Defendant's plea. Id., p. 28. 

At the time of sentencing, it was argued that Defendant had given information to

the Government but did not receive a substantial assistance motion. Doc. 70, pp. 3-13,

23-25. The Government responded. Id., pp. 13-23. The court found no basis for

compelling the Government to file a motion, nor any basis for downward departure

based on Defendant's assistance. Id., pp. 25-35.2

 Defendant was sentenced to terms

Case 4:02-cr-00065-RH-CAS Document 120 Filed 03/27/09 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6

affirmed on appeal. Doc. 108. 

Case Nos. 4:02cr65-RH and 4:08cv78-RH/WCS

of 70 months and 84 months on the two counts (a total of 154 months), to be served

consecutively. Id., p. 35; doc. 62 (judgment). The judgment was affirmed on June 4,

2004, and the mandate issued on July 6, 2004. Doc. 76. 

Timeliness

At the outset, the court notes that there is a one year limitations period for filing a

§ 2255 motion, which "shall run from the latest of" a number of dates. § 2255(f). As

relevant here, the time can run from "the date on which the judgment of conviction

becomes final," or "the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence." § 2255(f)(1) and

(4). 

Defendant claims that in June of 2007 he discovered that the credit union

referenced in the indictment was not federally insured. Doc. 114, p. 2. But the

indictment specifically charged that the deposits of the FSH Employees Credit Union

were insured by the National Credit Union Administration, and insurance by the National

Credit Union Administration is required under the statute. If indeed it was not so

insured, that was a fact which could have been easily discovered with due diligence at

any point after Defendant was indicted. The insured status was later uncovered (albeit

at first erroneously) by a simple letter of inquiry from Defendant. It therefore appears

that the latest commencement date would be the date on which the conviction became

final, on or about September 2, 2004 (when the time for filing a petition for writ of

certiorari expired following the order of affirmance). The one year expired in September

Case 4:02-cr-00065-RH-CAS Document 120 Filed 03/27/09 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6

3

 Defendant's arguments are somewhat conflicting, and he relies on standards of

review not appropriate on collateral review. As all of the arguments are based on the

federally insured status of the FSH Credit Union, the court reaches that question

directly. 

4

 Identical to § 2113(g) (2002). 

Case Nos. 4:02cr65-RH and 4:08cv78-RH/WCS

of 2005, and Defendant filed the § 2255 motion on February 15, 2008, almost two and a

half years late. 

The Government has not argued that the motion was untimely filed, however,

and the court reaches the merits of the claim.

§ 2255 Claim 

Defendant now asserts that the plea was not knowing and voluntary, the court

lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the conviction was unsupported in fact in violation of

due process, or he is actually innocent, as the FSH Employees Credit Union is not and

never was a federally insured credit union for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2113.3 

As used in [§ 2113] the term "credit union" means any Federal credit union

and any State-chartered credit union the accounts of which are insured by

the National Credit Union Administration Board, and any "Federal Credit

Union" as defined in section 2 of the Federal Credit Union Act. The term

"State-chartered credit union" includes a credit union chartered under the

laws of a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any

commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

§ 2113(g) (2009).4 

Defendant submits two exhibits in support. The first is a letter to Defendant from

the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), in response to his inquiry, explaining

that credit unions are insured and regulated by the National Credit Union Administration

and not the FDIC. Ex. A (letter of March 29, 2007). The second is a letter to Defendant

from the National Credit Union Administration, advising that "[w]e have no records for

Case 4:02-cr-00065-RH-CAS Document 120 Filed 03/27/09 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6

Case Nos. 4:02cr65-RH and 4:08cv78-RH/WCS

F.S.H. Employees Credit Union as being insure by the National Credit Union

Administration. You may need to contact the State of Florida for more information." Ex.

B (letter of June 14, 2007). 

The Government has provided a second letter which was sent to Defendant by

the National Credit Union Administration, dated February 28, 2008. Doc. 118, Ex. 1A. 

Defendant was advised:

we responded to your inquiry by letter dated June 14, 2007, in error,

stating that we had no records of the F.S.H. Employees Credit Union. 

F.S.H. Employees Credit is now known as Focus Credit Union.

This letter certifies that Focus Credit Union - Charter Number 67443,

obtained deposit insurance coverage from the National Credit Union Share

Insurance Fund effective April 4, 1991. As of the date of this letter, the

credit union's deposits remain federally insured.

Id. 

At a meeting on July 25, 2002, the Board of Directors / Members of the FSH

Employees Credit Union adopted a resolution to amend the name to Focus Credit

Union, effective January 1, 2003. Doc. 118, Ex. 3B (doc. 118-6). The amendment was

approved on August 5, 2002. The National Credit Union Administration Charter

information for Focus Credit Union (number 67443) reflects that it was originally

chartered and insured on April 4, 1991, and previously known as the FSH Employees

Credit Union. Doc. 118, Ex. 1B, p. 1; see also p. 2 (certificate of National Credit Union

Administration for FSH Employees Credit Union, 67443, issued April 24, 1991, certifying

that each member's shares are insured up to $100,000). 

The robbery in this case was committed on or about October 2, 2002, only a few

months before the effective date of the name change. Under either name, however, the

Case 4:02-cr-00065-RH-CAS Document 120 Filed 03/27/09 Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6

Case Nos. 4:02cr65-RH and 4:08cv78-RH/WCS

argument that this particular credit union was not insured by the National Credit Union

Administration is based solely on the letter to Defendant dated June 14, 2007. The

letter was written years after the offense and guilty plea, and years after the credit union

was renamed. 

In light of the exhibits filed by the Government, the error was clearly reasonable,

and corrected by a follow up letter to Defendant. Though Defendant responds that he

"would be more impressed with the Government's assertions" had it provided more

evidence, including a copy of the actual insurance policy and proof that the insuring

agency actually paid a claim for reimbursement for this robbery. Doc. 119. The burden

is not on the Government here, however. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the

credit union he robbed on October 2, 2002, was not a credit union as defined by 18

U.S.C. § 2113(g). His claims, all based on this premise, must fail. 

It is therefore respectfully RECOMMENDED that the § 2255 motion, doc. 114, be

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 27, 2009.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 4:02-cr-00065-RH-CAS Document 120 Filed 03/27/09 Page 6 of 6