Dinkins v. USA-2255, No. 1:2018cv02170 - Document 2 (D. Md. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 11/21/2018. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dinkins v. USA-2255 Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF l\1J-\RYLI\ND * JAMES DINKINS, Petitioner, * Criminal No. RDB-06-0309 v. * Civil Action No. RDB-18-2170 UNITED * ST.t\TES OF AMERICA, * Respondent. * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION * In 2009, pro se Petitioner James Dinkins defendants government related ("Petitioner" * * * or "Dinkins") and two co- were tried together and convicted of multiple charges relating to the murder of witnesses, the murder of a co-conspirator, offenses arising Baltimore.! Subsequently, life imprisonment from their involvement this Court sentenced and several narcotics and ftrearms- in a drug-trafftcking Petitioner organization in along with his co-defendants to on multiple counts. (ECF No. 340.) On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affmned this Court's Judgment. (ECF No. 429; United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2012).) Currently pending is the Petitioner's fourth Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.c. ~ 2255, arguing that he is entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's holding in SeJJions v. Dimqya, _ (ECF No. 546.) As with the Petitioner's the Government 1 U.S. _, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018). second and third Motions to Vacate under ~ 2255, argues that the l\10tion should be denied as a second or successive Motion This case was originally assigned to the Honorable J. Frederick t-.lotz and subsequently reassigned to the undersigned Judge onJuly 16,2018. 1 Dockets.Justia.com that has not been authorized parties' submissions, by the Fourth Circuit. (ECF No. 550.) Having reviewed the this Court finds that no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (ECF No. 546) is DENIED.2 BACKGROUND After a twelve-day jury trial, Petitioner distribute Dinkins was found guilty of conspiracy and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, to in violation of 21 U.S.c. ~ 486 (Count I); witness tampering and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.c. ~ 1512 and 18 U.S.c. ~ 2 (Count IV); three counts of possession and discharging of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.c. ~ 924(c) and 18 U.S.c. ~ 2 (Counts V, VII, VlII); and two counts of knowingly causing the death of a person through the use of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.c. ~ 9240) and 18 U.S.c. ~ 2 (Counts VI, IA). Oudgrnent, ECF No. 340.) This Court then sentenced Dinkins and his two co-defendants his co-defendants to life imprisonment appealed their Judgments, on several counts. (Id.) The Petitioner and which the Fourth Circuit afftrrned. (ECF No. 429; United States 1'. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2012).) On .August 23, 2013, Petitioner filed his first Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.c. ~ 2255; arguing ineffective additional vague, conclusory arguments. December assistance of counsel and (ECF No. 437.) This Court denied that Motion on 16, 2013, denied the Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability, and subsequently Also pending is Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 547), which is DENIED because neither an e\'identiary hearing nor the interests of justice require appointing counsel. 18 U.S.c. ~ 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. In addition, Petitioner also flied a Motion for 2 Discovery. (ECF No. 553.) Given that Petitioner's hlotion is denied both as an unauthorized successive r-lotion and as a matter of law, this Motion (ECF No. 553) is MOOT. 2 denied the Petitioner's appealed these denials Motion for Reconsideration. to the Fourth (ECF Circuit, which Nos. denied 452, 455.) Petitioner Dinkins a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. (ECF No. 467; Ullited Statu v. Dillkills, No. 14-6089, 569 F. App'x 159, 160 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2014).) On March 21, 2014--while pending-Petitioner Petitioner's appeal of his first ~ 2255 Motion was filed a second ~ 2255 motion. (ECF No. 462.) As this Court explained, under 28 U.S.c. ~ 2255: A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the 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). Petitioner had not received the proper certification from the Fourth Circuit for this Court to entertain a second or successive motion. Therefore, 2014, this Court denied Petitioner's Second Motion on March 31, to Vacate and denied Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability. (ECF No. 463.) On April 30, 2014, Petitioner filed a third ~ 2255 Motion,3 which authorization this Court or successive on May 27, 2014, Dinkins did petition ~ 2244 for an order authorizing application as a second Motion without from the Fourth Circuit. (ECF No. 469.) Subsequently, U.S.c. again denied for relief under 28 U.s.c. the Fourth Circuit under 28 this Court to consider a second or successive ~ 2255. III re:jamu DillkillJ, No. 14-258, ECF NO.2 Although Dinkins' motion was styled as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). this Court construed it as a motion to vacate because it alleged that petitioner was "actually innocent of a sentence" imposed by this 3 Court. (ECF No. 469.) 3 (4th Cir. 2014). On June 19, 2014, the Fourth Circuit denied Dinkins' petition. (ECF No. 472.) Over four years later, on July 13, 2018, Petitioner filed the currently pending Motion to Vacate Judgment under 28 U.S.c. ~ 2255, arguing that the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Sessions v. Dimqya, _ which he was convicted Motions, the Government U.S. _, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) renders the statute under void for vagueness. (ECF No. 546.) As with Petitioner's other argues that this Court has not been granted authorization from the Fourth Circuit to consider a successive application for relief by Dinkins. (ECF No. 550.) STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court recognizes that Petitioner is pro se and has accorded his pleadings liberal construction. Dept., No. proposition See Eri"kson v. Pardl/s, 551 U.S. 89,94 (2007); see alsoAllry v. Yadkin COl/nryShenff 17-1249, _ Fed App'x _ that "[p]ro se complaints liberally construed (4th Cir. Oct. 5, 2017) (citing Eri"kson for the and pleadings, however inartfully pleaded, must be and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted. by lawyers"). Under 28 U.S.c. ~ 2255, a prisoner in custody may seek to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence on four grounds: (1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence, (3) the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized otherwise subject to a collateral attack. Hill v. United Statu, by law, or (4) the sentence is 368 U.S. 424, 426-27 (1962) (citing 28 U.S.c. ~ 2255). "[A]n error of law does not provide a basis for collateral attack unless the claimed error constituted 'a fundamental 4 defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.''' Uniled Slales v. Addoni;do, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979) (quoting I-lill, 368 U.S. at 428). ANALYSIS 1. Petitioner's Motion is Successive As explained in this Court's prior Memorandum Opinions, under 28 U.S.c. ~ 2255: A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the 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); Jee aim Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996). Absent pre-filing authorization, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition. Uniled SlaleJ v. lI7ineslock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003). This is the Fourth Motion that Petitioner has filed under 28 U.s.c. Nos. 437, 462, 468, 546.) This Court denied Petitioner's denied the two subsequent first Motion on the merits, and 1\lotions as being successive without authorization Fourth Circuit. (ECl' Nos. 451, 463, 469.) L\fter this Court denied Petitioner's he petitioned the Fourth Circuit for an order authorizing ~ 2255. (ECF from the third Motion, this Court to consider a second or successive application for relief, which the Fourth Circuit denied. (ECF No. 472.) That is the first and only petition Dinkins has made to the Fourth Circuit in order to enable this Court to entertain jurisdiction a second or successive ~ 2255 motion. Therefore, this Court does not have to consider Dinkins' instant Motion, and Dinkins' Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 546) is DENIED. 5 II. Petitioner is not Entitled to Relief Even assuming that this Court had jurisdiction to consider Dinkins' Motion, he is not entitled to relief under SeSJionJ v. Dimaya, _ Supreme Court considered the Immigration V.S. _, the meaning of "crime of violence" under the residual clause of and Nationality Act, 18 V.S.c. ~ 16(b). ApplyingjobnJon S. Ct. 2551 (2015) to ~ 16(b), the Supreme unconstitutionally 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018). In Dimaya, the Court v. United Statu, 135 held that the residual clause was vague. In his Motion, Dinkins argues that the analysis in Dimaya applies equally to the statute under which he was convicted, 18 V.S.c. ~ 924(c). 18 V.S.c. ~ 924 (c), however, "prohibits the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime." United StateJ v. Hare, 820 F.3d 93, 106 (4th Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original). Dinkins was charged with possession and discharging of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 V.S.c. ~ 924(c) and 18 V.S.c. ~ 2, as well as possession furtherance and discharging of a firearm in of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 V.S.c. ~ 924(c) and 18 V.S.c. ~ 2. Thus, Dinkins was convicted in relation to a drug trafficking crime, not a crime of violence, and the Supreme Court's rulings in Dimaya and jobnJon do not apply to his conviction sentence. Petitioner's For this reason, even if Petitioner's or Motion was properly before this Court, Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (ECF No. 546) is DENIED. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's Sentence (ECF No. 546) is DENIED. 6 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Proceedings under 28 U.S.c. ~ 2255, this Court is required to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A certificate of appealability is a "jurisdictional prerequisite" to an appeal from the court's earlier order. United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 659 (4th Cir. 2007). A certificate of appealability may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional denies a petitioner's demonstrating motion on right." 28 U.S.c. ~ 2253(c)(2). \Vhere the court its merits, a petitioner satisfies this standard by that reasonable jurists would find the court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Miller-EI v. Cod!.rel/, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 M,Daniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Because reasonable jurists would not find Petitioner's claims debatable, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. A separate Order follows. Dated: NovemberJ.I,2018 Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge 7 (2003); Slack v.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
