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.

Amlee v. United States

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 26, 2014

KIRBY AMLEE, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. Respondents.

OPINION

ROBERT B. KUGLER, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner is a federal prisoner incarcerated at F.C.I. Fort Dix in Fort Dix, New Jersey. Petitioner is currently serving a sentence of sixty-three months imprisonment after he pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to one count of stealing United States property, one count of shipping and transporting ammunition by a prohibited person and one count of interstate transportation of stolen goods. Petitioner's sixty-three month sentence imposed by the Western District of Texas was ordered to run consecutively to another sentence imposed on petitioner by the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

Petitioner is proceeding with a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.[1] Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted based on the information provided therein. For the following reasons, the habeas petition will be dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction.

II. BACKGROUND

The Western District of Texas set forth the procedural history of petitioner's conviction at issue in this federal habeas petition as follows:

On June 15, 2006, Petitioner was indicted for stealing eight firearms which were the property of the United States, from the Fort Davis National Historical Site Museum (the Museum) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, shipping one box of ammunition from Texas to North Carolina in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922; and transporting in interstate commerce the eight stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. On July 18, 2006, Petitioner signed his guilty plea agreement. On July 18, 2006, Petitioner entered his guilty plea. On May 21, 2008, Petitioner was sentenced.

(W.D. Tex. Crim. No. 06-0172, Dkt. No. 124 at p. 1. (internal citations omitted).)[2] Petitioner appealed the judgment and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment and sentence on February 3, 2009. See United States v. Amlee, 308 F.Appx. 862 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

On August 25, 2009, petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Western District of Texas. ( See W.D. Tex. Crim. No. 06-0172, Dkt. No. 64.) Petitioner raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, due process violations, Miranda violations, and sentencing enhancement issues amongst other claims. On March 24, 2011, the Western District of Texas denied petitioner's § 2255 motion on the merits and denied a certificate of appealability. ( See W.D. Tex. Crim. No. 06-0172, Dkt. No. 124.) On March 7, 2012, the Fifth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability on petitioner's appeal of the denial of his § 2255 motion. ( See W.D. Tex. Crim. No. 06-0172, Dkt. No. 131.)

Subsequently, petitioner applied to the Fifth Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit denied petitioner's application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion by explaining that:

Amlee has not shown that his claims are based on either newly discovered evidence showing that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense or a previously unavailable rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review. See [28 U.S.C.] § 2255(h); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C). He likewise has not shown that a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent, see Schhlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 91995), or that he was not legally eligible for the sentence he received. See Smith v. Collins, 977 F.2d 951, 959 (5th Cir. 1992).

(W.D. Tex. Crim. No. 06-172, Dkt. No. 138 at p. 2.)

In December, 2013, this Court received the instant § 2241 habeas petition. Petitioner raises a plethora of claims related to his criminal conviction in the Western District of Texas. He raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, Miranda violations and ...


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.