United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, United States District Judge
matter is before the Court pending review of the Recommended
Disposition of United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram
[R. 190], as well as the Motion for Reconsideration filed by
Defendant John Wayne Adams. [R. 185.] For the reasons
explained below, the Court will ADOPT the Recommended
Disposition of Magistrate Judge Ingram, will GRANT Mr.
Adams's Motion for Reconsideration, but will DENY Mr.
Adams relief on the underlying motion.
2012, Defendant John Wayne Adams pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846. Although Mr. Adams's recommended
United States Sentencing Guidelines range was 262 to 327
months, Adams entered into a binding plea agreement with the
United States which set his term of imprisonment at 240
months. [See R. 119.] In November 2012, the
undersigned accepted the proposed binding plea agreement and
sentenced Adams to 240 months of incarceration. [See
2015, Mr. Adams filed a motion to reduce his sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to
the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which provides for a
two-level reduction in the base offense level for certain
drug offenses. [See R. 168.] The Court denied that
motion, stating that Adams was ineligible for relief as a
Career Offender. [R. 172.] Mr. Adams appealed the denial to
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals [R. 180] and also filed a
motion for reconsideration of the Court's order. [R.
185.] Subsequently, Mr. Adams filed a motion to vacate his
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [R. 188.]
Sixth Circuit dismissed Adams's appeal as untimely. [R.
191.] Magistrate Judge Ingram has recommended Adams's
habeas petition also be dismissed as untimely. [R. 190.] The
Court now considers both the pending motion for
reconsideration and Judge Ingram's Recommended
the Court must deny Mr. Adams's pro se motion to
vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Consistent with local practice, Adams's habeas petition
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A.
Ingram for the preparation of a Recommended Disposition.
Judge Ingram considered the matter and concluded Mr. Adams is
not entitled to the relief sought. Specifically, Judge Ingram
found that Mr. Adams's petition was time-barred, and
that, even if it was not untimely, it fails on the merits
because Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 251
(2015), does not apply to his case. [See R. 190.]
Ingram's Recommended Disposition advised the parties that
any objections to the recommendation must be filed within
fourteen (14) days of service or waive the right to further
appeal. [Id. at 7.] As of this date, neither party
has filed any objections nor sought an extension of time to
this Court must make a de novo determination of
those portions of a recommended disposition to which
objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no
objections are made, however, this Court is not required to
“review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard . . .
.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate's report and
recommendation are also barred from appealing a district
court's order adopting that report and recommendation.
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.
1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and
it agrees with Judge Ingram's Recommended Disposition.
Furthermore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability. The Court determines that reasonable jurists
would not find the denial of Mr. Adams's § 2255
motion debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000).
the Court considers Mr. Adams's Motion for
Reconsideration filed on February 10, 2016. [R. 185.] By way
of this pro se motion, Mr. Adams challenges the
Court's order at Docket Entry 172, which denied Mr. Adams
an Amendment 782 sentence reduction because he was a Career
Offender. [See R. 172.] Adams contends he was
sentenced pursuant to a binding plea agreement, not the
Career Offender provisions of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines. Accordingly, he moves for reconsideration of the
Court's order. [R. 185.]
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows for relief from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding where there has been a mistake
or where relief is otherwise justified. Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(b)(1), (6). Mr. Adams's articulated ground for
reconsideration is that he was sentenced under a binding plea
agreement and not as a Career Offender. Upon review of the
record, the Court agrees that Mr. Adams was, in fact,
sentenced pursuant to a binding plea agreement, an issue the
Court failed to address when denying his request for a
sentence reduction. [See R. 119; R. 172; R. 181-1 at
2-3.] Therefore, his motion for reconsideration will be
granted, and the Court will vacate its prior order denying
the sentence ...