United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TERRY F. MOORER, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on a pro se motion by Orlando Fernandez-Leyva ("Fernandez-Leyva") to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
On June 3, 2011, a jury found Fernandez-Leyva guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Following a sentencing hearing on October 4, 2011, the district court sentenced him to 60 months' imprisonment and 10 years' supervised release. Fernandez-Leyva appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed his conviction and sentence on June 28, 2012. See United States v. Fernandez-Leyva, 482 Fed.App'x 417 (11th Cir. 2012).
On January 14, 2013, Fernandez-Leyva filed this § 2255 motion asserting:
1. His 60-month sentence of imprisonment was based on facts not proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. His 10-year term of supervised release exceeded the authorized statutory maximum and was an unwarranted upward departure under the Sentencing Guidelines.
3. The imposition of 235 days of pretrial home detention constituted "official detention" for which he should receive credit against his term of imprisonment.
4. His counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (a) failing to challenge the district court's imposition of a sentence of imprisonment in excess of that authorized by the jury's verdict and (b) failing to argue his 10-year term of supervised release exceeded the authorized statutory maximum and was an unwarranted upward departure under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Doc. No. 1 at 4-8; Doc. No. 1-1 at 2-14.
After consideration of Fernandez-Leyva's § 2255 motion, the submissions supporting and opposing the motion, and the record, the court concludes that an evidentiary hearing is not required and that, under Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts, the § 2255 motion should be denied.
A. General Standard of Review
Because collateral review is not a substitute for direct appeal, the grounds for collateral attack on final judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are limited. A prisoner is entitled to relief under § 2255 if the court imposed a sentence that (1) violated the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) exceeded its jurisdiction, (3) exceeded the maximum authorized by law, or (4) is otherwise subject to collateral attack. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United States v. Phillips, 225 F.3d 1198, 1199 (11th Cir. 2000); United States v. Walker, 198 F.3d 811, 813 n.5 (11th Cir. 1999). "Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for that narrow compass of other injury that could not have ...