Source: http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190819_0000795.WTN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-18 18:18:58
Document Index: 642870830

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

FindACase™ | Bailey v. United States
MICHAEL B. BAILEY, Movant,
ORDER DENYING MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
THOMAS L. PARKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Movant Michael B. Bailey[1] moves in this Court to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (§ 2255 Motion”). (ECF No. 1.) The § 2255 Motion is now ripe. For the reasons below, Movant's § 2255 Motion is DENIED.
I. Criminal Case Numbers 2:09-cr-20051 BBD and 2:09-cr-20465-BBD
A federal grand jury in the Western District of Tennessee indicted Movant on one count of carjacking (“Count 1”) and one count of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (“Count 2”) in case number 2:09-cr-20051-BBD (“Case 1”). (Indictment, No. 2:09-cr-20051-BBD, Criminal (“Cr.”) ECF No. 1.) Another federal grand jury later indicted Movant on one count of mailing a threatening communication to a federal judge and one count of intentionally conveying false and misleading information about the letter containing anthrax in case number 2:09-cr-20465-BBD (“Case 2”). (Indictment, No. 2:09-cr-20465-BBD, Cr. ECF No. 1.)
Movant then pleaded guilty to both counts in Case 1 and guilty to the count involving mailing threatening communications to a federal judge in Case 2. (No. 2:09-cr-20051-BBD, Cr. ECF Nos. 33 & 35, No. 2:09-cr-20465-BBD, Cr. ECF Nos. 24 & 25.)
The written plea agreement in Case 1 provided that the United States would recommend that Movant serve the sentence on Count One concurrently with the sentence imposed in Case 2 and would recommend that Movant receive a reduction in his sentencing guideline offense level for acceptance of responsibility. (Cr. No. 2:09-20051-BBD, Cr. ECF No. 34.)
The written plea agreement in Case 2 contained Movant's affirmation that his plea of guilty to Count One was knowing and voluntary and provided that the United States would move for dismissal of Count Two in exchange for Movant's guilty pleas in the two criminal cases at sentencing and would recommend that he receive the maximum reduction for acceptance of responsibility reduction on Count One in Case 2. (Id., Cr. ECF No. 25.)
The Court held one sentencing hearing for both cases. (No. 2:09-cr-20051-BBD, Cr. ECF No. 39, No. 2:09-cr-20465-BBD, Cr. ECF No. 31.) At that sentencing hearing, the judge determined that Movant was entitled to the full three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility leading to an advisory guideline range of 262 to 327 months in prison. (Sentencing Transcript (“Tr.”), No. 2:09-cr-20051, Cr. ECF No. 43 at PageID 74-75.) The court then sentenced Movant to an effective term of imprisonment of 264 months. For Case 1, the judge imposed a sentence of 180 months in prison on Count One and eighty-four months consecutively on Count Two. The judge imposed a sentence of 120 months in prison in Case 2; to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Case 1. (No. 2:09-cr-20051-BBD, Cr. ECF No. 40, No. 2:09-cr-20465-BBD, Cr. ECF No. 32.) Movant did not appeal.
II. The § 2255 Motion
Six years after the court sentenced Movant, he filed his § 2255 Motion alleging:
(1) that he should have gone to trial and not pleaded guilty in Case 1;
(2) that the weapon used during the carjacking was an air gun, not a firearm; and
(3) that the Court did not inform him of his right to appeal ...