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.

Gailican Phillips v. United States of America

March 23, 2011

GAILICAN PHILLIPS, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: John G. Koeltl, District Judge:

ORDER

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

The petitioner, Gailican Phillips (the "petitioner), appearing pro se, moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.

I.

On May 18, 2005, the petitioner, represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to transport stolen property across state lines, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and three counts of the substantive charge of transporting stolen property across state lines, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The petitioner was sentenced, on February 28, 2006, to time served and three years of supervised release, with the special condition that he pay restitution in the amount of $1,767,000. Judgment was entered on March 8, 2006, and the petitioner did not file an appeal.

On or about September 17, 2007, the Probation Department brought five specifications for violations of the terms of the petitioner's supervised release including: violating state law, failure to make a good faith effort to pay the court-ordered restitution, failure to submit written monthly supervision reports to the Probation Department, failure to follow the instructions of the Probation Department, and failure to secure and maintain acceptable employment.

On December 12, 2007, the petitioner appeared with counsel and admitted to specification four, stating that he did not follow instructions from the Probation Department because he failed to secure an alternate residence. (Hr'g Tr. at 3:14-19, 5:1-16.) The remaining specifications were dismissed, and the petitioner was sentenced to ninety days in a Residential Re-Entry Center. (Hr'g Tr. at 5:18-25, 7:16-18.)

On December 20, 2007, the district court filed an amended judgment reflecting the petitioner's violation of supervised release.

On January 23, 2008, the petitioner commenced the current action through a petition styled as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner, however, failed to specify the statute under which he seeks federal habeas relief. On February 22, 2008, United States District Judge Deborah A. Batts issued an order construing the petition as a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (See 08 Cv. 597, Docket #3.) After the matter was fully briefed by both the petitioner and the government, the case was transferred to this Court on November 15, 2010.

While it is difficult to discern the petitioner's arguments from his submissions, the petitioner appears to argue that Supervised Release is unconstitutional and that his VOSR conviction violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and the Fifth Amendment protection against Double Jeopardy. For the reasons explained below each of the petitioner's arguments is without merit.

II.

The government argues that the petitioner's claims are procedurally barred because the petitioner failed to take a direct appeal from his VOSR conviction. The general rule is that claims not raised on direct appeal by federal prisoners "may not be raised on collateral review unless the petitioner shows cause and prejudice[,]" Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003); "or that he is 'actually innocent' of the crime of which he was convicted." De Jesus v. United States, 161 F.3d 99, 102 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1988)). "A fortiori, such a showing must be made when there is a complete failure to take a direct appeal."

United States v. Pipitone, 67 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1995).

The petitioner does not explain why he did not appeal his VOSR conviction let alone demonstrate a sufficient showing of cause. Moreover, the petitioner cannot demonstrate that he is actually innocent of the violation of supervised release because the petitioner admitted his guilt in open court under oath. ...


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.