The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Skretny United States District Judge
Presently before this Court are pro se Petitioner's various motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his federal sentence. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner's motions are denied.
On November 29, 2004, Petitioner appeared before this Court, executed a Waiver of Indictment, and pled guilty to a single-count Information charging him with wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. That charge carried a possible maximum sentence of 5 years and a $250,000 fine. (Docket No. 3, ¶ 1.*fn1
Under the terms of the plea agreement, Petitioner and the Government agreed that the total offense level, including a reduction for Petitioner's acceptance of responsibility, was 19, and that Petitioner's criminal history category was I, which resulted in a Guidelines sentencing range of 30 to 37 months, a fine of $6,000 to $60,000, and a period of supervised release of 2 to 3 years. (Docket No. 3, ¶¶ 11, 13, 14.) Petitioner acknowledged that he understood that the court must also impose restitution in an amount not exceeding $1,752,820. (Docket No. 3, ¶ 2.)
Also included in the plea agreement is Petitioner's acknowledgment that he "knowingly waives the right to appeal, modify pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3582(c)(2), and collaterally attack any sentence imposed by the Court which falls within or is less than the sentencing range for imprisonment, a fine, and supervised release set forth in Section II above, even though the Court may reach the sentence by a Guidelines analysis different from that set forth in this agreement." (Docket No. 3, ¶ 20.)
On May 6, 2005, Petitioner, through his counsel, filed his Statement with Respect to Sentencing Factors, wherein he adopted the findings in the Probation Officer's PreSentence Investigation Report ("PSR"), except for the calculation of relevant conduct and restitution. (Docket No. 7.)
On May 11, 2005, this Court sentenced Petitioner to a 37-month term of imprisonment and 3-year term of supervised release, and ordered him to pay $1,781,987.96 in restitution. (Docket No. 11.) The Clerk of the Court filed the sentencing judgment on May 24, 2005. (Docket No. 11.) Petitioner did not appeal.
On December 14, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct his Sentence and Conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket No. 13.) After that motion was fully briefed and pending before this Court, Petitioner filed a "Motion for Leave to Amend Instant 2255 for Modification of the Restitution Amount" and a "Motion to Amend Supervisory Release." (Docket Nos. 23, 24.) As Petitioner requests, this Court has considered these two motions as amendments to his original § 2255 motion. But for the reasons that follow, all of Petitioner's motions are denied.
Twenty-eight U.S.C. § 2255 allows federal prisoners to challenge the constitutionality of their sentences.That section provides, in pertinent part, that:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to ...