United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Movant's Motion for Relief
from Judgment and Order Under Rule 60(b)(6 [Doc. No.35]. The
government has responded to the motion. For the reasons set
forth below, the motion is dismissed.
was indicted on a two count indictment by a grand jury on
November 21, 2002. Count I charged Movant with conspiring to
commit murder for hire. Count II charged Movant with
committing murder for hire. Both Counts alleged violations of
18 U.S.C. § 1958.
February 28, 2005, jury selection in Movant's trial
began. A jury was selected thereafter and on March 7, 2005,
Movant's trial began. The jury returned its guilty
verdict on Count I and not guilty verdict on Count II.
penalty phase of Movant's trial began on March 14, 2005.
On March 17, 2005, the jury recommended a sentence of life
imprisonment without parole. This Court sentenced Movant
accordingly on June 30, 2005.
appealed his conviction. On January 31, 2007, the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction United
States v. Cannon, 475 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2007). Movant
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
The Supreme Court denied the writ on October 1, 2007.
Cannon v. United States, 552 U.S. 885 (2007).
timely moved to vacate his sentence under Title 28, United
States Code, Section 2255. Amesheo Cannon v. United
States, 1:08CV148 HEA. He asserted various claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel. Thereafter, on April 20,
2010, this Court issued its order and judgment denying each
of Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims
in his Section 2255 Motion. This Court also found that
because Petitioner had not “made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right, ” the Court
declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
October 27, 2017, Petitioner filed an application for leave
to file a motion for successive habeas relief under Section
2255. Cannon v. United States, No. 17-3337. In his
motion, he alleged that his offense of conviction under Title
18, United States Code, Section 1958, is
“overbroad” and “divisible, ” and
sets forth many “elements, ” and that because he
was found guilty of conspiracy only, that his sentence should
have been limited to 20 years. Petitioner relied upon the
Supreme Court's decisions in Mathis v. United
States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), and Descamps v.
United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013). On March 28, 2018
The Eighth Circuit found that Petitioner failed to allege the
existence of newly discovered evidence and/or a new rule of
constitutional law as required under Title 28, United States
Code, Section 2255(h) and denied the application.
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides:
Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or
Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a
party or its legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move ...