United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is petitioner Andrew Milton Williams's pro
se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set
aside, or correct sentence by a person in federal custody.
Doc. # 1. After considering the parties'
submissions, the record, and the applicable law, the court
finds that Williams's § 2255 motion should be denied
without an evidentiary hearing. Rule 8(a), Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States
23, 2013, Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit
bank and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349,
and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Doc. #
6-4. Following a sentencing hearing on June 26, 2014, the
district court sentenced Williams to 48 months in prison.
Doc. # 6-9.
appealed, arguing that (1) his sentence was procedurally
unreasonable because the district court based its denial of a
downward departure for diminished capacity on an incorrect
legal standard and a clearly erroneous fact; and (2) his
sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district
court relied on impermissible factors and improperly weighed
the evidence of diminished capacity. Doc. # 6-12.
19, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Williams's
convictions and sentence. Doc. # 6-13; see Williams v.
United States, 610 Fed.Appx. 892 (11th Cir. 2015).
August 15, 2016, Williams filed this § 2255 motion
presenting the following claims:
1. His sentence was substantively unreasonable because the
district court improperly assessed his claim seeking a
downward departure for his diminished capacity that allegedly
resulted from his PTSD.
2. His guilty plea was “coerced” because (a) he
believed he would receive more credit than he did at
sentencing for cooperating with the government; and (b) he
did not understand that the district court could reject his
plea agreement and sentence him to more than two years in
Doc. # 1 at 4-5.
General Standard of Review
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 been raised in direct appeal and would, if condoned,
result in a complete miscarriage of justice.'”
Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
Claim Raised and ...