1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 15-cr-20268 

 District Judge Paul D. Borman 

SHAWN HOUSE, 

 

 Defendant. / 

ORDER 

(1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S SECOND 

OBJECTIONS (ECF NO. 92) AND HIS PRIOR 

OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

DAVID GRAND'S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 67) 

DENYING HIS MOTION FOR RELIEF 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GRAND'S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY 

PETITIONER'S MOTION UNDER § 2255 TO 

VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT 

SENTENCE (ECF NO. 67) 

 On March 5, 2021, Defendant filed his Second Objections to Magistrate 

Judge Grand's Report and Recommendation in response to the Court's Order 

permitting filing of such late objections. (ECF No. 92.) On April 23, 202, the 

Government filed a Response to Defendant's Second Objections. (ECF No. 93.) 

Case 2:15-cr-20268-PDB-DRG ECF No. 94, PageID.613 Filed 08/26/21 Page 1 of 3
2 

 Defendant relies on the Sixth Circuit decision in United States v. Havis, 927 

F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc) for relief with regard to his conviction, and also 

contends that the Court erred in computing his sentence. 

 The Government responds that Havis does not support House's § 2255 

claim, citing Bullard v. United States, 937 F.3d 654, 659-661 (6th Cir. 2019), and 

that United States v. Johnson, 732 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2013) undermines his 

sentencing claim. (ECF No. 93, at PageID.1-2.) 

 In Bullard v. United States, 937 F.3d 654, 660-661 (6th Cir. 2019), the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a defendant cannot 

use a § 2255 Motion to vindicate non-constitutional challenges to advisory 

guideline calculations. As a result, Bullard cannot use § 2255--or the Circuit's 

decision in Havis--to attack collaterally his designation as a career offender under 

the Sentencing Guidelines. As Magistrate Judge Grand point out, "absent a change 

in intervening law, § 2255 is not a vehicle for appealing the Sixth Circuit's decision 

on the basis that it employed an improper standard of review...House cannot avoid 

this prohibition by simply recharacterizing this same argument as ineffective 

assistance of counsel.... In sum, the principal arguments House asserts in his § 

2255 Motion were considered and rejected by the Sixth Circuit in connection with 

his direct appeal. This alone dooms these arguments in his § 2255 Motion." (M.J. 

Grand Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 67, at PageID.329-330.) 

Case 2:15-cr-20268-PDB-DRG ECF No. 94, PageID.614 Filed 08/26/21 Page 2 of 3
3 

 With regard to House's claim relating to the Court's sentencing guideline 

determination involving drug quantities, this Court notes that the Sixth Circuit held 

that District Courts have "broad sentencing discretion, informed by judicial 

factfinding." United States v. Johnson, 732 F.3d 577, 584 (6th Cir. 2013). In the 

instant sentencing there was significant judicial factfinding, that significantly 

benefitted Defendant. 

 Magistrate Judge Grand's Report & Recommendation cites to the sentencing 

hearing transcript, where the Court stated: 

For conservative purposes, I'm going to cut it down [the 

pill amounts] from 80 milligram to 40 milligrams...And 

that would probably cut it in half in terms of the 

kilograms of the marijuana. 

(ECF No. 67, at PageID.340.) Indeed, the prosecutor noted that this reduced the 

offense level to 32, as Defense Counsel Steven Scharg had sought. 

 Thus, as Magistrate Judge Grand concluded, "the [District] Court followed 

Rule 32 and the relevant case law by establishing the drug quantity 

conservatively." (Id. at PageID.342.) 

 Accordingly, this Court REJECTS Defendant's objections to Magistrate 

Judge Grand's Report & Recommendation. 

 SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 26, 2021 s/Paul D. Borman 

 PAUL D. BORMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cr-20268-PDB-DRG ECF No. 94, PageID.615 Filed 08/26/21 Page 3 of 3