United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the motion of Michael Goodwin for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, as well as his petition “for
the Court to take judicial notice of adjudicated
facts.” After reviewing the financial information
provided, the Court finds that Goodwin is unable to pay the
filing fee. Therefore he will be granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons discussed
below, Goodwin's petition will be denied.
September 7, 2001, Goodwin pled guilty to Count I of an
indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine and more
than 50 grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846. United States v. Goodwin, 4:01CR173 CEJ
(E.D. Mo.). In the plea agreement, Goodwin stipulated
that he was responsible for 15 to 50 kilograms of cocaine,
“including relevant conduct.”
plea agreement listed nine events that occurred during the
course of the conspiracy in which cocaine or cocaine base was
found, and it provided that these events could be considered
relevant conduct. At sentencing, Goodwin objected to the
inclusion of the nine events as relevant conduct in the
presentencing report (“PSR”). But the objection
was overruled based on the fact that Goodwin had stipulated
to being responsible for 15 to 50 kilograms of cocaine.
to the United States Sentencing Guidelines
(“U.S.S.G.”) in effect at the time, the base
offense level for more than 15 and less than 50 kilograms of
cocaine was 34. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3). The Court
applied this guideline and after adjustments, determined that
Goodwin's total offense level was 31. With a criminal
history category of II, the guideline range was 121 to 151
months' imprisonment. Goodwin was ultimately sentenced to
a term of 151 months' imprisonment. Count VII, which
charged Goodwin with possession with intent to distribute
more than 50 grams of cocaine base, was dismissed pursuant to
the plea agreement at the time of sentencing.
2008, petitioner moved the Court to reduce his sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment
706 to the U.S.S.G., which lowered the base offense level for
offenses involving cocaine base. The Court denied the motion
after finding that Goodwin's sentence was based on
cocaine, not cocaine base. The judgment of the Court was
summarily affirmed on appeal. United States v.
Goodwin, No. 11-1080, (8th Cir. February 23,
January 4, 2016, Goodwin filed a petition for writ of error
coram nobis, seeking to have his federal judgment vacated. He
argued that his criminal judgment should be vacated because
the indictment was defective and because his plea agreement
was ambiguous. Goodwin v. United States,
4:16-CV-0007 SNLJ (E.D.Mo.). The Court denied his petition
for writ of error coram nobis on the merits on January 28,
2016. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirmed
the denial of the petition on March 8, 2016. Goodwin v.
United States, No. 16-1368 (8th Cir.
instant action, petitioner asserts that the Court should
reconsider its decision denying the petition for writ of
error coram nobis. He argues once again that the indictment
was defective because it was the conspiracy count (Count I)
that “derived from all other [dismissed] counts.”
He asserts that he “could not have pled guilty to count
one or stipulated to the relevant conduct without the effects
of Count VII.” Thus, Goodwin states that he is again
seeking a petition for writ of error coram nobis to reverse
Courts have authority to issue a writ of error coram nobis
under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Coram
nobis is an “extraordinary remedy, ” and should
only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S.
Dist. Court for the Northern Dist. of California, 426
U.S. 394, 403 (1976). Moreover, coram nobis is not intended
to be a substitute for proceedings brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Noske, 235
F.3d 405, 406 (8th Cir. 2000); United States v.
Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954).
arguments are nothing but a reiteration of his prior
arguments before both this Court and the Eighth Circuit.
These assertions have been denied in petitioner's motion
for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 706, as well as
his prior petition for writ of error coram nobis, and the
appeals of both of those motions. Additionally, petitioner
has failed to overcome the presumption that the underlying
proceedings were correct. As a result, petitioner has failed
to show that he was denied a fundamental right, and the
petition will be denied without further proceedings.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition “for the
Court to take judicial notice of adjudicated facts” is