Court Opinion

ID: 9369566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 14:01:29.310291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.085334
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6718      Doc: 7         Filed: 02/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-6718

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CHRISTOPHER J. BAILEY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:95-cr-00002-1; 2:16-cv-
        06190)

        Submitted: January 24, 2023                                       Decided: February 8, 2023

        Before AGEE and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Christopher J. Bailey, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6718      Doc: 7         Filed: 02/08/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               We previously granted Christopher J. Bailey authorization to file a successive 28

        U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He now appeals the district court’s orders adopting in part the

        magistrate judge’s recommendation, granting his § 2255 motion in part, vacating his 18

        U.S.C. § 2261(a)(2) interstate domestic violence conviction and sentence, and denying

        reconsideration. We affirm.

               Bailey argues that a full resentencing hearing was required on his remaining 18

        U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) kidnapping conviction under the sentencing package doctrine. The

        form of relief awarded by the district court in a successful § 2255 proceeding is reviewed

        for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 667 (4th Cir. 2007). The

        district court has “broad and flexible power . . . to fashion an appropriate remedy” in

        granting relief on collateral review. United States v. Hillary, 106 F.3d 1170, 1171 (4th Cir.

        1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). This court has held “that the district court is

        authorized to conduct a resentencing in awarding relief pursuant to § 2255, not that the

        district court is required, in resolving every § 2255 [motion], to conduct a resentencing.”

        Hadden, 475 F.3d at 668. Thus, in a § 2255 proceeding, the district court may remedy an

        unlawful sentence by one of the following: (1) releasing the prisoner, (2) granting the

        prisoner a future new trial, or (3) imposing a new sentence either by (a) resentencing the

        prisoner or (b) correcting the prisoner’s sentence. Id. at 667. “[T]he goal of § 2255 review

        is to place the defendant in exactly the same position he would have been had there been

        no error in the first instance.” Id. at 665 (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6718      Doc: 7         Filed: 02/08/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               Here, the sole harm to Bailey, as identified by the district court, was the invalid

        conviction on the § 2261(a)(2) count. To “correct” this error, the district court vacated that

        conviction and sentence. Contrary to Bailey’s assertion on appeal, we conclude that a

        resentencing hearing was not required under these circumstances. See id. at 667 (“To

        ‘correct’ means to ‘make or set right.’ Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 280 (11th

        ed. 2004). This is precisely what the district court did here.”). Finally, Bailey’s argument

        that a resentencing hearing was required under the sentencing package doctrine is

        foreclosed by Hadden. See id. at 669.

               Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability as unnecessary, see id. at 664-66,

        and affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

        and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      3