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.

Stockton v. United States

United States District Court, D. Maryland

December 18, 2018

ROLANDO STOCKTON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM

          Ellen L. Hollander, United States District Judge

         This Memorandum addresses the Rule 60(b)(5) motion (the “Motion” or the “Petition”) filed by Petitioner Rolando Stockton on January 23, 2018.[1] ECF 627. Stockton, who is self-represented, seeks to vacate the Memorandum and Order of Judge Marvin Garbis entered July 5, 2012 (ECF 570), denying Stockton's Motion to Vacate filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See ECF 530; ECF 531.[2] The government has filed a response in opposition. ECF 628. Stockton has replied. ECF 630.

         No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny the Motion.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         Stockton was charged with multiple offenses in a Superseding Indictment filed on August 19, 1999. ECF 33. A Fifth Superseding Indictment was filed on April 17, 2001. On May 30, 2001, following a jury trial, Stockton was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; use of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). ECF 394.

         At sentencing on January 15, 2002 (see Docket), Judge Garbis departed downward, over government objection, from a guideline sentence of 480 months' incarceration. See ECF 570 at 2. It appears that Judge Garbis thought that Stockton's career offender designation under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 overstated his criminal history. Instead, he sentenced Stockton to an aggregate sentence of 330 months' imprisonment. See ECF 421 (Judgment docketed January 28, 2002). As the government observes, this was a “departure of 150 months.” ECF 628 at 2.

         Stockton noted an appeal to the Fourth Circuit. ECF 422. The government filed a cross appeal as to the sentence (ECF 427), challenging the 150-month downward departure. On November 17, 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Stockton's conviction, but reversed the District Court's decision to depart downward based on an over-representation as to the career offender designation. See ECF 464; see also United States v. Stockton, 349 F.3d 755 (4th Cir. 2003). The Court said, id. at 765: “Rolando Stockton is exactly the type of person to whom the career offender classification is intended to apply.” The Fourth Circuit remanded for a new sentencing, with instructions to apply the career offender classification.

         Judge Garbis resentenced Stockton on March 12, 2004. See Docket. An Amended Judgment was entered on April 1, 2004, reflecting a total term of imprisonment of 480 months' incarceration. ECF 465.

         On January 5, 2006, Stockton filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF 494. In a Memorandum and Order of July 13, 2006 (ECF 501), Judge Garbis denied the Motion as time barred. The Court later denied (ECF 504) Stockton's Motion to alter or amend. See ECF 503. But, in a Memorandum and Order of September 15, 2006 (ECF 509), Judge Garbis authorized the filing of an appeal, nunc pro tunc, from the resentencing held on March 12, 2004. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal on July 20, 2007. ECF 518; see United States v. Stockton, 240 Fed. App'x 601 (4th Cir. 2007).

         Then, through court-appointed counsel (ECF 524), Stockton filed an amended § 2255 petition. See ECF 530; ECF 531. And, in a Memorandum and Order of June 19, 2004 (ECF 540), Judge Garbis rescinded his ruling in ECF 501, finding that Stockton's attorney had failed to file a timely § 2255 motion, despite the Court's direction to do so.

         A motion hearing was held on August 20, 2009. ECF 547. Other hearings were held on May 6, 2011 (ECF 557) and July 19, 2011. ECF 561. In a comprehensive, 35-page Memorandum and Order of July 5, 2012, Judge Garbis denied the § 2255 petition on the merits. ECF 570.

         Stockton then noted an appeal to the Fourth Circuit. ECF 572. That Court affirmed in an unpublished, per curiam opinion issued on November 20, 2013. ECF 596. The Court rejected the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with two pre-trial plea offers. The mandate issued on January 13, 2014. ECF 597.

         In orders of March 1, 2017 (ECF 624) and June 21, 2017 (ECF 626), Judge Garbis denied Stockton's motions for reduction of sentence and for modification of sentence. See ECF 602; ECF 623. The Rule 60(b)(5) Motion now at issue followed on January 23, 2018. ECF 627. In it, Stockton seeks to vacate the Court's Memorandum and Order of July 5, 2012 (ECF 570), denying his § 2255 motion.

         In the Petition at issue, Stockton claims that he is entitled to relief because of a change in the law. He relies on the Fourth Circuit's decision in United States v. Davis, 720 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2013). In its opposition, the government contends that the Motion is subject to dismissal as a successive ...


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.