EFTA01809334.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION RONNIE LEROY SNYDER, Movant, No. C09-2028-LRR No. CR04-2008-LRR vs. ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This matter appears before the court on Ronnie Leroy Snyder's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (civil docket no. 1). Ronnie Leroy Snyder ("the movant") filed such motion on June 16, 2009. On June 22, 2010, the court directed the parties to brief the claims that the movant included in his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (civil docket no. 5). On July 21, 2010, the movant filed a supplement (civil docket no. 7) and a brief (civil docket no. 8). On July 26, 2010, the movant again filed a supplement (civil docket no. 12). On August 20, 2010, the government filed a responsive brief (civil docket no. 13). On September 20, 2010, the movant filed a reply (civil docket no. 16). The court now turns to consider the movant's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A district court is given discretion in determining whether to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Oldham, 787 F.2d 454, 457 (8th Cir. 1986). In exercising that discretion, the district court must determine whether the alleged facts, if true, entitle the movant to relief. See Payne v. United States, 78 F.3d 343, 347 (8th Cir. 1996). "Accordingly, [a district court may summarily dismiss a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without an evidentiary hearing] if (1) the . . . EFTA_R1_00167729 EFTA01809334 allegations, accepted as true, would not entitle the [movant] to relief, or (2) the allegations cannot be accepted as true because they are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or conclusions rather than statements of fact." Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 240-41 (8th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also Delgado v. United States, 162 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary where allegations, even if true, do not warrant relief or allegations cannot be accepted as true because they are contradicted by the record or lack factual evidence and rely on conclusive statements); United States v. Hester, 489 F.2d 48, 50 (8th Cir. 1973) (stating that no evidentiary hearing is necessary where the files and records of the case demonstrate that relief is unavailable or where the motion is based on a question of law). Stated differently, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion can be dismissed without a hearing where "the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief." 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also Standing Bear v. United States, 68 F.3d 271, 272 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). The court concludes that it is able to resolve the movant's claims from the record. See Rogers v. United States, 1 F.3d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding "[a]ll of the information that the court needed to make its decision with regard to [the movant's] claims was included in the record . . . ." and, therefore, the court "was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing") (citing Rule Governing Section 2255 Proceedings 8(a) and United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674, 100 S. Ct. 2406, 65 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1980)). The evidence of record conclusively demonstrates that the movant is not entitled to the relief sought. Specifically, the record indicates that the movant's allegations are disingenuous and/or inherently incredible. As such, the court fords that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing. With respect to the merits of the movant's claims, the court deems it appropriate to deny the movant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for the reasons stated in the government's resistance. The government's brief adequately sets forth the law that is applicable to the 2 EFTA_R1_00167730 EFTA01809335 facts in the movant's case. Specifically, the government correctly concluded that defense counsel provided professional and effective assistance to the movant and the movant suffered no prejudice as a result of counsel's actions. It also correctly concluded that there is absolutely no basis to vacate, set aside or correct the movant's sentence. Moreover, the court thoroughly reviewed the record and finds that the denial of the movant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion comports with the Constitution, results in no "miscarriage of justice" and is consistent with the "rudimentary demands of fair procedure." Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428, 82 S. Ct. 468, 7 L. Ed. 2d 417 (1962); see also United States v. Apfel, 97 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th Cir. 1996) ("Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised for the first time on direct appeal and, if uncorrected, would result in a complete miscarriage of justice." (citing Poor Thunder v. United States, 810 F.2d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 1987))). The court concludes that no due process violation occurred, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred and no Brady violation occurred. In addition, the court fmds that the movant knowingly and voluntarily entered a valid guilty plea pursuant to an agreement that he entered into with the government. The movant's current suggestion that he is actually innocent because he was actually trying to repair a vehicle with the items he purchased at the store is belied by the record. And, the movant's preposterous statements as to his mental health or an insanity defense do not warrant relief. Moreover, the court concludes that the conduct of counsel fell within a wide range of reasonable professional assistance, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), and counsel's performance did not prejudice the movant's defense, id. at 692-94. Defense counsel fully litigated suppression issues and wisely advised the movant with respect to his career offender status. The movant's reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to blame his former attorney for not doing more with respect to several previously litigated issues is not appropriate. The movant's picking apart of the search warrant, challenge to the arrest warrants and criticism of other 3 EFTA_R1_00167731 EFTA01809336 minor issues do not establish that counsel performed in a deficient manner. The record indicates that the movant benefitted tremendously from decisions that he and defense counsel made. Nothing the movant states in support of his request for relief leads the court to conclude that a violation of the Sixth Amendment or Fifth Amendment occurred. Had the movant or defense counsel attempted to pursue the frivolous matters that he now raises, it is likely that the movant would be serving a significantly longer sentence. Lastly, the court concludes that the movant is not entitled to relief based on Begay because both of the movant's prior convictions for burglary of a commercial building qualify as predicate offenses. See United States v. Stymiest, 581 F.3d 759, 769 (8th Cir. 2009). Even if he did not qualify as a career offender, the record makes clear that the court would have departed or varied upward in light of the movant's significant criminal history, and, consequently, it would have arrived at the same sentence. In sum, the alleged errors that are asserted by the movant do not warrant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The movant's claims are meritless and/or frivolous. Based on the foregoing, the movant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion shall be denied. In a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding before a district judge, the final order is subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A district court possesses the authority to issue certificates of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). See Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue only if a movant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003); Garrett v. United States, 211 F.3d 1075, 1076-77 (8th Cir. 2000); Carter v. Hopkins, 151 F.3d 872, 873-74 (8th Cir. 1998); Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997); Tiedeman, 122 F.3d at 523. To make such a showing, the issues 4 EFTA_R1_00167732 EFTA01809337 must be debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings. Cox, 133 F.3d at 569 (citing Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882-83 (8th Cir. 1994)); see also Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 335-36 (reiterating standard). Courts reject constitutional claims either on the merits or on procedural grounds. "[W]here a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy [28 U.S.C.] § 2253(c) is straightforward: the [movant] must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.'" Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000)). When a federal habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claim, "the [movant must show], at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, the court finds that the movant failed to make the requisite "substantial showing" with respect to the claims that he raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Because he does not present a question of substance for appellate review, there is no reason to grant a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability shall be denied. If he desires further review of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, the movant may request issuance of the certificate of appealability by a circuit judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in accordance with Tiedeman, 122 F.3d at 520-22. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) The movant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (docket no. 1) is denied. 5 EFTA_R1_00167733 EFTA01809338 2) A certificate of appealability is denied. DATED this 4th day of June, 2012. C.) ) LINDA R. READE CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. DIST COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA 6 EFTA_R1_00167734 EFTA01809339