Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. United States

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

November 21, 2018

LARRY JAMES WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

          RULING ON MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE

          VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On June 27, 2016, Larry James Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, moving to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mot. to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, ECF No. 1.

         Because Mr. Williams' motion is an uncertified, successive habeas corpus petition, this Court must transfer it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the “Tenth Circuit”), without addressing the merits.

         For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence, ECF No. 1, and DENIES as moot Plaintiff's remaining motions.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         In April 2012, Plaintiff pled guilty to one specification of rape of a child, two specifications of aggravated sexual contact with a child, and one specification of forcible sodomy at a General Court-Martial. Williams v. Ledwith, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131342 at *1, 2015 (D. Kan. 2015), aff'd, 671 Fed.Appx. 719 (10th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff appealed his conviction to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals on three grounds: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) improper judicial conduct of a providence inquiry; and (3) Plaintiff's intellectual incapacity to confess and purported coercion of his confession by the Criminal Investigative Division (CID). Id. at 2.

         In January of 2014, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Plaintiff's conviction and sentence. Id. That court had considered “the entire record, including consideration of the issues personally specified by the appellant.” Id. In March of 2014, Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (“CAAF”), which denied his petition in April of 2014. Id. That same month, Plaintiff petitioned the CAAF for reconsideration, and included three additional motions and new factual claims. Id. The CAAF denied Plaintiff's motions and petition for reconsideration. Id.

         On September 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the District of Kansas. Id. Plaintiff asserted three claims: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) error in the providence inquiry and insufficiency of the evidence; and (3) newly-discovered evidence. Id. at 6. Plaintiff sought “a retrial or reversal of the charges, release, a declaration that his Army enlistment is invalid, declaratory judgment, an admission of abuse of discretion by the military judge, an investigation of the CID and damages.” Id. That district court considered both Plaintiff's allegations and an affidavit submitted by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. at 6-7. The court then decided Plaintiff's case on the merits and held “that the military courts gave full and fair consideration to petitioner's claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, an inadequate providence inquiry, and insufficient evidence, and that waiver bars petitioner's claim of newly-discovered evidence.” Id.

         On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mot. to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, ECF No. 1. Shortly after Plaintiff filed this motion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of Plaintiff's writ of habeas corpus. Williams, 671 Fed. App'x. at 719.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A federal prisoner challenging a criminal sentence may do so under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 “where the sentence (1) was imposed in violation of the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the United States; or (2) was entered by a court without jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (3) exceeded the maximum detention authorized by law; or (4) is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” Adams v. United States, 372 F.3d 132, 134-35 (2d Cir. 2004) (“As amended by the AEDPA, § 2255 now contains a gate-keeping feature that limits a prisoner's ability to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.”)

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) limits a prisoner's ability to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Id. The Act requires a second or successive petition to be certified by a panel of an appropriate court of appeals to contain: “(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); Adams, 372 F.3d at 135.

         “The AEDPA does not define a ‘second or successive' petition or motion.” Corrao v. United States, 152 F.3d 188, 191 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Camarano v. Irvin, 98 F.3d 44, 45-46 (2d Cir. 1998)). The Second Circuit, however, has repeatedly held that a petition is deemed to be second or successive if a prior petition “raising claims regarding the same conviction or sentence [ ] has been decided on the merits.” Quezada v. Smith, 624 F.3d 514, 517-18 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Corrao, 152 F.3d at 191)(Further, “AEDPA requires the permission of a court of appeals to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition in a district court . . . .”); Camarano, 98 F.3d at 45-47 (per curium)(“Our interpretation of ‘second or successive' petitions in § 2244 also finds support in the jurisprudence of claim preclusion . . . . [i.e., as a] “modified res judicata rule.” Citing Felker v. Turpin, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 2340 (1996)).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.