Opinion

Harris v. United States

Court
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Filed
Jun 16, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.2%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

COURTNEY LEE HARRIS, )

Movant,

v. No. 4:22-cv-00629-JAR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on movant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion is successive and will be denied and dismissed.

On October 2, 2015, movant pled guilty to two counts of possessing a firearm as a felon

and his sentence was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act. He also pled guilty to one

count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. United States v. Harris, No. 4:15-cr-

000134-1-JAR (E.D. Mo. filed Oct. 2, 2015). On January 12, 2016, the Court sentenced movant

to 200 months of imprisonment. Movant did not file an appeal of his sentence.

On September 13, 2018, movant filed his first motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Harris v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-01546-JAR (E.D. Mo.

Sept. 13, 2018). Movant’s § 2255 motion was dismissed as time-barred. Id. at ECF 4. The Court

also denied movant’s motion for reconsideration. Jd. at ECF 7. Movant filed a motion to file a

successive motion attacking his sentence under § 2255 with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

on December 26, 2018.! Harris v. United States, No. 18-3730 (8th Cir. filed Dec. 26, 2018). The

Eighth Circuit denied this petition on April 1, 2019. Id.

On January 22, 2019, movant filed another petition for permission to file a successive

habeas petition with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Harris v. United States, No. 19-1147

(8th Cir. filed Jan. 22, 2019). The Eighth Circuit dismissed this petition as duplicative of his

petition filed in Case No. 18-3730. Harris v. United States, No. 19-1147 (8th Cir. Jan. 30, 2019).

Movant filed the instant motion to vacate on June 13, 2022. He alleges that the penalty

imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) is no longer constitutionally valid. For

support, he cites the United States Supreme Court decision in Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct.

1817 (2021). In Borden, the Supreme Court held that a criminal offense that requires only a mens

rea of recklessness cannot be considered a “violent felony” under the elements clause of the

ACCA. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Eighth Circuit has addressed whether Borden applies

retroactively on collateral review.

A district court is not “required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to

inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it

appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United

States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). Rather, a federal

inmate seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must first receive certification from the court of

appeals to file a second or successive motion. United States v. Brown, 915 F.3d 1200, 1201 (8th

Cir. 2019). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (‘Before a second or successive application

‘Tt is unclear why movant filed his appeal of the denial of his first § 2255 motion with the Eighth

Circuit as a “petition for permission to file a successive habeas petition.” His untimely § 2255

motion filed in this Court on September 13, 2018 was his first motion to vacate, correct, or set

aside sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

-2-

permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate

court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application”).

The instant motion to vacate has not been certified by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth

Circuit. As a result the Court may not grant the requested relief and this action must be denied and

dismissed.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence

is DENIED AND DISMISSED as SUCCESSIVE. [ECF No. 1]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.

An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.

Dated this SMb%y of June, 2022.

CK:

fe ha ___

ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.