United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
McBryde United States District Judge.
for consideration the motion of Anthony Watkins
("movant") under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate,
set aside, or correct sentence. After having considered the
motion, the government's response, the reply, and
pertinent parts of the record in Case No. 4:06-CR-010-A,
styled "United States of America v. Lewis Baston, et
al., " the court has concluded that the motion must be
dismissed as untimely.
contained in the record of the underlying criminal case
discloses the following:
January 19, 2006, movant was named with two others in an
indictment charging him in count one with conspiracy to
possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and in count two with
possession of a controlled substance with intent to
distribute more than five hundred grams of a mixture and
substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1) and (b) (1)
(B) . CR Doc. 1. On April 6, 2006, movant pleaded guilty
to count two of the indictment. CR Doc. 64. On July 28, 2006,
the court sentenced movant to a term of imprisonment of 264
months. CR Doc. 86; CR Doc. 95. Movant appealed and his
conviction and sentence were affirmed. CR Doc. 114;
United States v. Watkins, 231 F.App'x 340
(5th Cir. 2007) . Movant did not pursue a writ of
order signed June 20, 2008, the court granted movant's
motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c) (2), and reduced his sentence to a term of 211
months. CR Doc. 121. Movant filed two further motions for
sentence reduction, which were denied, CR Docs. 130, 144,
134, 149, and a motion for reconsideration, which was also
denied. CR Docs. 152, 153. Movant appealed, but his appeal
was dismissed for want of prosecution. CR Doc. 159.
of the Motion
asserts one ground in support of his motion. Movant says that
he was sentenced as a career offender, which is now erroneous
in light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243
(2016), and United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569
(5th Cir. 2016).
conviction and exhaustion, or waiver, of any right to appeal,
courts are entitled to presume that a defendant stands fairly
and finally convicted. United States v. Fradv, 456
U.S. 152, 164-165 (1982); United States v. Shaid,
937 F.2d 228, 231-32 (5th Cir. 1991). A defendant can
challenge his conviction or sentence after it is presumed
final on issues of constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude
only, and may not raise an issue for the first time on
collateral review without showing both "cause" for
his procedural default and "actual prejudice"
resulting from the errors. Shaid, 937 F.2d at 232.
2255 does not offer recourse to all who suffer trial errors.
It is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights
and other narrow injuries that could not have been raised on
direct appeal and would, if condoned, result in a complete
miscarriage of justice. United States v. Capua, 656
F.2d 1033, 1037 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept. 1981). In other words,
a writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed to do service for
an appeal. Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 345
(1974). Further, if issues "are raised and considered on
direct appeal, a defendant is thereafter precluded from
urging the same issues in a ...