Page 1 of 4

Cases No. 4:10cr25-RH/CAS and 4:12cv470-RH/CAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASES NO. 4:10cr25-RH/CAS

 4:12cv470-RH/CAS

ALDO RAY WILSON,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE § 2255 MOTION

The defendant has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for relief from his 

judgment of conviction. The motion is before the court on the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation, ECF No. 80. No objections have been filed. This 

order accepts the report and recommendation and denies the § 2255 motion, with 

this additional note.

An officer saw the defendant driving a truck. A computer check showed the 

truck’s owner had a suspended or revoked license. The defendant matched the 

description of the owner; the officer thus reasonably believed the defendant was 

driving with a suspended or revoked license. The officer decided to make a traffic 

stop. But the defendant was at his residence. The defendant pulled into his yard. 

Case 4:10-cr-00025-RH-CAS Document 81 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

Cases No. 4:10cr25-RH/CAS and 4:12cv470-RH/CAS

The officer followed the defendant, who got out of the truck and walked back to 

the officer. They talked, a back-up officer arrived, and eventually the back-up 

officer looked into the truck. He saw a gun in plain view. That led to the 

defendant’s arrest for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. 

The defendant instructed his attorney to file a motion to suppress, but the 

attorney declined to do it. The defendant now says this constituted ineffective 

assistance. In fact, however, the stop was lawful; the officer reasonably believed 

the defendant was driving on a suspended or revoked license. The officer had a 

right to stop the truck, even though, before this could be accomplished, the truck 

was on the defendant’s property. The stop and eventual seizure of the gun were 

proper. Had the defendant’s attorney filed a motion to suppress, I would have 

denied it. The attorney did not render ineffective assistance.

The report and recommendation also correctly concludes that the defendant 

was properly convicted as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The 

defendant had “three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug 

offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another,” even as 

those terms are defined today, and even without regard to the “residual clause” that 

was held unconstitutional in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). 

For these reasons and the additional reasons set out in the report and 

recommendation, the defendant is not entitled to relief.

Case 4:10-cr-00025-RH-CAS Document 81 Filed 08/21/15 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

Cases No. 4:10cr25-RH/CAS and 4:12cv470-RH/CAS

A defendant may appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion only if the district 

court or court of appeals issues a certificate of appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 

(2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. 

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting out the standards applicable to a 

§ 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said in Slack:

To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that reasonable 

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the 

petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the 

issues presented were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.” 

529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in order to 

obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural grounds, 

a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and 

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct 

in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. 

The defendant has not made the required showing. This order thus denies a 

certificate of appealability. Accordingly,

Case 4:10-cr-00025-RH-CAS Document 81 Filed 08/21/15 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

Cases No. 4:10cr25-RH/CAS and 4:12cv470-RH/CAS

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The clerk must enter a judgment stating, “The defendant’s motion for 

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED.”

2. The defendant’s application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

SO ORDERED on August 21, 2015.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cr-00025-RH-CAS Document 81 Filed 08/21/15 Page 4 of 4