Opinion
7:20-CV-148-D 7:19-CR-23-D
11-12-2021
JUSTIN ALSTON WOODS, Petitioner, v. UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER III United States District Judge.
On April 15, 2019, Justin Alston Woods ("Woods" or "petitioner") pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. See [D.E. 19]. On October 7, 2019, the court sentenced Woods to 71 months' imprisonment. See [D.E. 32, 34]. Woods did not appeal.
On August 14, 2020, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Woods moved pro se to vacate his conviction. See [D.E. 37]. In his section 2255 motion, Woods seeks relief based on Rehaif v. United States. 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019) See Id. On July 29, 2021, the United States moved to dismiss Woods's motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [D.E. 41] and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 42].
The court grants the government's motion to dismiss. Woods's claim is not based on aright newly recognized by the Supreme Court. Regardless, Woods procedurally defaulted his claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal. Thus, the general rule of procedural default bars Woods from presenting his claim under section 2255. See, e.g.. Massaro v. United States. 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003); Bouslev v. United States. 523 U.S. 614, 621 (1998); United States v. Fugit 703 F.3d 248, 253 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Sanders. 247 F.3d 139, 144 (4th Cir. 2001). And Woods has not plausibly alleged "actual innocence" or "cause and prejudice" resulting from the alleged error about which he now complains. See Bousley. 523 U.S. at 622-24; Coleman v. Thompson. 501 U.S. 722, 753 (1991); United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 170 (1982); United States v. Pettiford. 612 F.3d 270, 280-85 (4th Cir. 2010); Sanders. 247 F.3d at 144; United States v. Mikalajunas. 186 F.3d 490, 492-95 (4thCir. 1999); cf. Presentence Investigation Report p.E.24] ¶¶20, 21, 22, 24. Thus, the claim fails.
See Tate v. United States. 982 F.3d 1226, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 2020) (per curiam); Matav. United States. 969 F.3d 91, 93-94 (2d Cir. 2020) (per curiam); In re Price. 964 F.3d 1045, 1049 (11th Cir. 2020); In re Sampson. 954 F.3d 159, 160-62 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam); In re Wright 942 F.3d 1063, 1065 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam): In re Palacios. 931 F.3d 1314, 1315 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam); cf Edwards v. Vannov. 141 S.Ct. 1547, 1554-62 (2021).
In sum, the court DISMISSES Woods's section 2255 motion and DENIES a certificate of appealabilty. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Miller-El v. Cockrell. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel. 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
SO ORDERED.