United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
STADTMUELLER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Stepfonz Campbell (“Campbell”) pleaded guilty to
one count of arson of a building resulting in injury, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(i) and 2. United
States v. Stepfonz Campbell, 17-CR-7-JPS (E.D. Wis.)
(Campbell's “Criminal Case”), (Docket #18).
On October 11, 2017, the Court sentenced him to 92
months' imprisonment. (Criminal Case, Docket #30).
Campbell did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
11, 2018, Campbell filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.
(Docket #1). That motion is now before the Court for
If it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits,
and the record of the prior proceedings that the moving party
is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion
and direct the clerk to notify the moving party. If the
motion is not dismissed, the judge must order the United
States Attorney to file an answer, motion, or other response
within a fixed time, or to take other action the judge may
4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.
the Court begins the screening process by examining the
timeliness of the motion and whether the claims therein are
procedurally defaulted. The Court need not address those
matters, however, because Campbell's sole ground for
relief is plainly meritless. Campbell says that his due
process rights were violated because he was sentenced as a
career offender and his previous convictions do not meet the
standard for a “crime of violence.” (Docket #1 at
5-9). However, Campbell was not sentenced as a career
offender. Review of the presentence report, sentencing
hearing minutes, and judgment from his Criminal Case confirms
this. See (Criminal Case, Docket #25, #28, #30). In
the presentence report, the Probation Office provided the
United States Sentencing Guidelines calculation for
Campbell's offense of conviction, and that calculation
does not include a career offender enhancement. (Criminal
Case, Docket #25 at 17-18). At the sentencing hearing, the
Court adopted that Guidelines calculation for the purpose of
determining an appropriate sentence. (Criminal Case, Docket
#28 at 1). Because Campbell's sentence was not imposed on
the basis of a career offender enhancement, his Section 2255
petition seeking to be re-sentenced without a career offender
enhancement is plainly meritless.
Campbell is plainly not entitled to relief on the sole ground
presented in his motion, the Court is compelled to deny the
motion and dismiss this action with prejudice. Under Rule
11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, “the
district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant.” To obtain a certificate of appealability
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), Campbell must make a
“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right” by establishing that “reasonable jurists
could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal citations
omitted). No. reasonable jurists could debate whether
Campbell's motion presented a viable ground for relief.
As a consequence, the Court is compelled to deny a
certificate of appealability as to Campbell's motion.
the Court closes with some information about the actions that
Campbell may take if he wishes to challenge the Court's
resolution of this case. This order and the judgment to
follow are final. A dissatisfied party may appeal this
Court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit by filing in this Court a notice of appeal within 30
days of the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P.
3, 4. This Court may extend this deadline if a party timely
requests an extension and shows good cause or excusable
neglect for not being able to meet the 30-day deadline.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). Moreover, under
certain circumstances, a party may ask this Court to alter or
amend its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) or ask for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b). Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) must be filed within 28 days of the entry of
judgment. The Court cannot extend this deadline. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2). Any motion under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) must be filed within a reasonable time,
generally no more than one year after the entry of the
judgment. The court cannot extend this deadline. See
id. A party is expected to closely review all applicable
rules and determine what, if any, further action is
appropriate in a case.
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion
to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to
Section 2255 (Docket #1) be and the same is hereby
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same
is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice; and
IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of
appealability be and ...