Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cannon v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

April 19, 2019

AMESHEO CANNON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This 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.

         Procedural Background

         Movant 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.

         On 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.

         The 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.

         Movant 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).

         Petitioner 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.

         On 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.

         Discussion

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides:

         (b) 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:

         (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

         (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.