United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHARLES A. SHAW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on movant Robert Dinkins'
amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The government opposes the
motion and movant has filed a reply and a supplemental reply.
This matter is fully briefed and ready for decision. For the
following reasons, movant's motion will be denied.
8, 2015, a one-count indictment charged movant with felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). United States v.
Dinkins, No. 4:15-CR-314-CEJ-1 (E.D. Mo.). Movant waived
his right to a jury trial and requested a bench trial. At
trial, the Court found movant guilty and subsequently
sentenced him as an Armed Career Criminal to 180 months of
imprisonment. With the assistance of counsel, movant filed a
timely appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In his
appeal, movant argued that the District Court erred in
finding him guilty of being a felon in possession of a
firearm because he was legally justified in possessing the
firearm to protect himself and the community from imminent
danger. On May 26, 2017, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the judgment of the District Court. United
States v. Dinkins, 688 Fed.Appx. 408 (8th Cir. 2017).
filed a motion to vacate his sentence on August 22, 2017.
After reviewing the file, the Court determined that the
motion did not comply with Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts
because movant failed to specify grounds for relief and facts
supporting each ground. The Court issued an Order on August
30, 2017, providing movant with the opportunity to submit an
amended motion to vacate. (Doc. 6.) Movant filed the instant
amended motion to vacate on September 13, 2017. (Doc. 10.)
September 21, 2017, the United States filed its response to
movant's amended motion to vacate. (Doc. 13.) On October
5, 2017, movant filed a reply memorandum to the United
States' response, which was incorrectly titled and
docketed as “Motion of Grant Judgement [sic] on the
Grounds Set Forth in Motive [sic] 2255 to Vacate for
Relief.” (Doc. 14.)
April 12, 2018, after another review of the file, the Court
found that the United States failed to address one of
movant's grounds for relief and directed the United
States to file a supplement to its response. (Doc. 16.) On
April 18, 2018, the United States filed its supplemental
response to movant's amended motion to vacate. (Doc. 18.)
On April 23, 2018, movant filed a reply memorandum to the
United States' supplemental response. (Doc. 19.) On May
7, 2018, without leave of Court, movant filed a supplemental
response memorandum to the United States' initial
response. (Doc. 22.)
movant's amended motion to vacate presently before the
Court, movant asserts the following grounds for relief:
Ground One: The District Court improperly rejected
movant's justification defense in violation of the 14th
Amendment right to equal protection and the 5th Amendment
right to due process.
Ground Two: Movant's trial counsel was
ineffective because his attorney failed to present a defense
that the Second Amendment permitted him to possess a firearm
and failed to present a Fourth Amendment defense that the
police officers did not have probable cause to arrest movant
for possessing a firearm, although movant asked her to raise
Ground Three: The District Court improperly
sentenced movant “without jurisdiction” and
“without representation” because counsel failed
to file an entry of appearance in the case.
Ground Four: The District Court improperly rejected
movant's justification defense in violation of the Second
Amendment right to bear arms and the Fifth Amendment right to
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a defendant may seek relief on
grounds that the sentence was imposed in violation of the
Constitution or law of the United States, that the court
lacked jurisdiction to impose such a sentence, that the
sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by law, or that the
sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. To warrant relief under § 2255, the errors
of which movant complains must amount to a fundamental
miscarriage of justice. Davis v. United States, 417
U.S. 333 (1974); Hill v. United States, 368 U.S.
424, 428 (1962). The Supreme Court has stated that “a
collateral challenge may not do service for an appeal.”
United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 165 (1982).
§ 2255 motion ‘can be dismissed without a hearing
if (1) the [movant]'s allegations, accepted as true,
would not entitle the [movant] to relief, or (2) the
allegations cannot be accepted as true because they are
contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or
conclusions rather than statements of fact.”
Sanders v. United States, 341 ...