United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division
OPINION & ORDER
MICHAEL MCSHANE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Chris Darrell
Joseph Sage's Amended Motion to Vacate or Correct
Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 90. The Court
has determined that no hearing is required and the motion is
November 2013, Sage entered a guilty plea to charges of Felon
in Possession of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g) and 924(e) and Possession with Intent to
Distribute 50 or More Grams Actual Methamphetamine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii).
In May 2014, Judge Owen M. Panner sentenced Sage to 240
months, which included a fifteen year mandatory minimum
sentence pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18
U.S.C. § 924(e). Sage was also found to be a Career
Offender under the sentencing guidelines, U.S.S.G.
§§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2. Sage had the following relevant
prior state court convictions:
1) Two counts of Assaulting a Public Safety Officer (APSO) in
violation of ORS 163.208, Class C felonies. Judgment was
entered on November 17, 2008. Gov't Sentencing Mem. Ex.
2, at 9. ECF No. 44.
2) Manufacture of Methamphetamine in violation of ORS
475.886, a Class B felony. Judgment was entered on November
17, 2008. Gov't Sentencing Mem Ex. 3, at 10.
3) Possession of a Precursor Substance with Intent to
Manufacture a Controlled Substance in violation of ORS
475.967, a Class B felony. Judgment was entered on February
6, 2003. Gov't Sentencing Mem. Ex. 4, at 6.
4) Manufacture of Methamphetamine in violation of ORS
475.992, a Class B felony.Judgment was entered on February 6,
2003. Gov't Sentencing Mem. Ex. 5, at 7.
filed a direct appeal of his sentence, which was dismissed by
the Ninth Circuit. United States v. Sage, 609 F.
App'x 410 (9th Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court denied
Sage's petition for certiorari. Sage v. United
States, 136 S.Ct. 347 (2015).
filed his original § 2255 motion pro se, ECG
No. 76, but Sage has since filed an amended § 2255
motion with the assistance of appointed
counsel. ECF No. 90.
28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner in custody under
sentence may move the court that imposed the sentence to
vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence on the ground
[T]he 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 collateral attack. . . .
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
warrant relief, a petitioner must demonstrate that the error
of constitutional magnitude had a substantial and injurious
effect or influence on the guilty plea or the jury's
verdict. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S.
619, 637 (1993); see also United States v. Montalvo,
331 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2003) (“We hold now that
Brecht's harmless error standard applies to
habeas cases under section 2255, just as it does to those
under section 2254.”).
petitioner seeking relief under § 2255 must file his
motion within the one-year statute of limitations set forth
in § 2255(f). The limitations period runs one year from
the latest of four dates: (1) when the judgment of conviction
became final; (2) when the impediment to making a motion
created by governmental action in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
movant was prevented from making a motion by such
governmental action; (3) when the right asserted is initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review; and (4) when the
facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have
been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f).
§ 2255, “a district court must grant a hearing to
determine the validity of a petition brought under that
section, ‘[u]nless the motions and the files and
records of the case conclusively show that the
prisoner is entitled to no relief.'” United
States v. Blaylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1994)
(alteration and emphasis in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255). In determining whether a § 2255 motion
requires a hearing, “[t]he standard essentially is
whether the movant has made specific factual allegations
that, if true, state a claim on which relief could be
granted.” United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d
1055, 1062 (9th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original, internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). A district court may
dismiss a § 2255 motion based on a facial review of the
record “only if the allegations in the motion, when
viewed against the record, do not give rise to a claim for
relief or are ‘palpably incredible or patently