United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Jasper Division
KENNETH J. GUYTON, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
SCOTT COOGLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Kenneth J. Guyton (“Guyton”) has filed with the
Clerk of this Court a motion to vacate, set aside or
otherwise correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255, as well as a brief in support thereof. (Docs. 1 &
2.) The Government has responded in opposition to his motion.
(Doc. 6.) Guyton then filed what he styled a “Motion
for Summary Judgment” in further support of his claims.
(Doc. 7.) For the reasons set forth below, the § 2255
motion is due to be denied and this action dismissed without
an evidentiary hearing.
January 6, 2016, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”), working with
investigators from Alabama's 24th Judicial Circuit Drug
Task Force, conducted a controlled purchase of drugs from
Guyton and co-defendant Joel Tucker (“Tucker”). A
cooperating witness spoke with Tucker over the phone and
agreed to meet at a residence in Fayette County, Alabama, to
conduct the purchase. Tucker and Guyton arrived at the
residence. Guyton carried a shotgun into the residence, and
the three discussed the sale of methamphetamine. Tucker and
Guyton provided the witness with approximately six grams of
methamphetamine and the shotgun in exchange for $380 in cash.
Tucker and Guyton discussed providing the witness with
additional drugs later so that Guyton could reclaim the
January 25, 2017, Guyton was charged in an indictment with
one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute and to distribute five grams or more of
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), as well as 21 U.S.C. § 846
(Count One); one count of aiding and abetting in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C.
§ 2 (Count Two); one count of being a felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1) (Count Three); and one count of using and carrying
a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count Four).
pled guilty pursuant to a written, signed, plea agreement on
June 8, 2017. He pled guilty to Counts One, Three, and Four,
and the Government agreed to dismiss Count Two.
November 2, 2017, Guyton was sentenced to 77 months'
imprisonment as to Counts One and Three, separately, to run
concurrently with each other, and consecutive to 60 months
imprisonment as to Count Four, for a total term of
imprisonment of 137 months. Judgment was entered on November
3, 2017. Guyton did not appeal.
November 10, 2018, Guyton signed his § 2255 motion,
which was filed into the record six days later.
remains in custody.
Timeliness and Non-Successiveness of the § 2255
judgment on Guyton's conviction was issued on November 3,
2017, Guyton had 14 days, or until November 17, 2017, to file
an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals of the
Eleventh Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A).
When that date passed without a notice of appeal from Guyton,
his conviction became final for purposes of the instant
§ 2255 motion. See Mederos v. United States,
218 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11th Cir. 2000). Because Guyton filed
this § 2255 motion within one year of the date upon
which his conviction became final, the motion is timely.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (f)(1). This is also
Guyton's first § 2255 motion, so it is not
“second or successive” within the meaning of the
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”). See Id. at §§
Standard of Review
collateral review is not a substitute for direct appeal, the
grounds for collateral attack on final judgments pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 are extremely 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 ...