United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KINKEADE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Moses Coppin's (Movant) motion to vacate,
set-aside, or correct sentence pursuant 28 U.S.C. §
2255. For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion
with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.
was charged by second superseding indictment with conspiracy
to obstruct justice through evidence concealment in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(B), (k) (Count One); aiding
and abetting obstruction of justice through evidence
concealment in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
1512(b)(2)(B), (c)(1), and 2 (Count Two); and felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (Count Four). (Doc. 50.)
Unless otherwise indicated, all document numbers refer to the
docket number assigned in the underlying criminal action,
3:10-CR-345-K(1). He pled not guilty, and a jury convicted
him of all counts. (Doc. 88.) He was sentenced to 240
months' imprisonment for Counts One and Two to be served
concurrently, and 120 month's imprisonment for Count Four
to be served consecutively to the sentences for Counts One
and Two, for a total aggregate term of 360 months'
imprisonment. (Doc. 109.) On appeal, the conviction for Count
One was vacated, and the case was remanded for resentencing.
(Doc. 153); United States v. Coppin, No. 12-10586
(5th Cir. June 2, 2014). Coppin was then sentenced to 240
months' imprisonment for Count Two and 120 months'
imprisonment for Count Four to be served consecutively to the
sentence for Count Two, for a total aggregate term of 360
months' imprisonment. (Doc. 159.)
raises the following grounds in his motion to vacate and
amended motions to vacate:
(1) The Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and was not
constitutionally authorized to preside over his criminal
proceedings, so the criminal case should have been dismissed.
(3) The Court improperly charged the jury regarding Count
(4) The indictment did not include the corrupt concealment
language of the statute, so his conviction was
unconstitutional, and the Court constructively amended the
(5) The government violated due process by allowing its
witness to testify falsely.
(6) He received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate
counsel because they did not raise any of the above-stated
(7) The docket sheet shows that the sentences are
consecutive, but the judgment does not state that the
sentences are consecutive;
(8) The restitution order is invalid, because it is based on
a residual clause in the restitution statute that is
unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United
States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015);
(9) His sentence was based on sentencing guidelines that
included an unconstitutionally ...