United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division
LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE.
the Court is Petitioner Michael Lee Willis's Letter (Doc.
162), asking the Court to: (1) reconsider its Order adopting
Judge Langstaff's Report & Recommendation
(“R&R”) and denying his Motion to Vacate
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) with respect to his
sentence, reconsider granting him the low end of the
guideline range and recommending the Residential Drug
Assistance Program (“RDAP”). The Court construes
Petitioner's Letter as a motion for relief under Rule
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a motion
for reconsideration of his sentence.
was indicted in this Court on February 13, 2013. (Doc. 1).
The Indictment charged him with one count of conspiracy to
manufacture methamphetamine; one count of maintaining a
drug-involved premises; one count of possession of equipment,
chemicals, products, and materials used for the manufacture
of methamphetamine; one count of conspiracy to possess
pseudoephedrine with knowledge or reason to know of its
wrongful intended use under 21 U.S.C. § 846; one count
of conspiracy to possess pseudoephedrine with knowledge or
reason to know of its wrongful intended use under 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(c)(2); one count of unlawful purchase of
pseudoephedrine; and one count of possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
counsel, Rick Collum, represented Petitioner. (Doc. 31). On
July 17, 2013, Petitioner pleaded guilty to Count One of the
Indictment, conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. (Doc.
42, p. 10). He was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment
of 108 months. (Docs. 84, 85). Petitioner filed a Waiver of
Appeal. (Doc. 88).
October 27, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct his Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255. (Doc. 92). The Court dismissed all but two grounds
enumerated in Petitioner's Motion to Vacate. (Doc. 116).
Attorney Jared Westbroek was appointed to represent
Petitioner. With the Court's permission, Mr. Westbroek
amended Petitioner's Motion to Vacate. (Doc. 129).
Following the amendment, an evidentiary hearing was held
before Judge Langstaff on April 19, 2016 as to whether trial
counsel rendered ineffective assistance in declining to call
witnesses to testify on Petitioner's behalf at
sentencing. (Doc. 145). On August 8, 2017, Judge Langstaff
issued an R&R, recommending that Petitioner's Motion
to Vacate be denied. Petitioner filed objections, and the
Court conducted a de novo review of the R&R. On
January 12, 2017, the Court entered an order adopting Judge
Langstaff's recommendation and denying Petitioner's
Motion to Vacate. (Doc. 153).
filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Court's ruling on
January 26, 2017. (Doc. 155). The Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals construed the Notice of Appeal as a motion for a
certificate of appealability, and issued an Order denying the
motion on June 6, 2017. (Doc. 161). On July 11, 2017,
Petitioner filed this motion for reconsideration.
Motion for Reconsideration, Pursuant to Rule 60(b)
asks the Court to reconsider its order adopting Judge
Langstaff's R&R and denying his Motion to Vacate
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Although Petitioner has not
specified the basis for his request, the Court construes this
as a motion to reconsider under Federal Rule of Civil
Civ. P. 60(b) allows a party to request relief from a final
judgment or order for:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . .; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released or discharged . . .; or (6) any other reason that
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Petitioner requests that the Court
read his pro se objections to the R&R, because
“[he] truly believe[s] [he] stated cause for relief on
numerous grounds, as well as submitted evidence to support
those grounds denied.” (Doc. 162, p. 2). The docket
does not reflect that Petitioner filed pro se
objections to the R&R. Rather, Mr. Westbroek filed
objections on his behalf. (Doc. 152). The Court read and
considered these objections in its de novo review of
Judge Langstaff's R&R. Ultimately, Petitioner's
objections were overruled, the R&R was adopted, and
Petitioner's motion to vacate was denied. Petitioner has
not shown that relief is warranted based on the existence of
any of the factors enumerated in Rule 60(b). The Motion is,
Motion for ...