Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a federal prisoner, Gregory Lee, appealing the denial of his third motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Initially convicted in 1986 for armed robbery and related firearm offenses, Lee received a 27-year sentence. His first § 2255 motion was granted on grounds of ineffective assistance but resulted in the same sentence upon resentencing. Subsequent appeals and motions were denied, with the second motion dismissed for raising previously litigated ineffective assistance claims. In his third motion, Lee argued a double jeopardy violation for consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), but the district court found this procedurally barred and meritless due to a 1984 amendment allowing such sentences. Lee's ex post facto challenge to the amendment's timing was also procedurally barred. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Lee's motion, citing procedural rules and legislative intent for cumulative punishments. The appeal concluded without oral argument, as neither party requested it.
Legal Issues Addressed
Abuse of Process under Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court deemed Lee's third motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as an abuse of process because it raised issues that had been previously settled or not raised in earlier motions.
Reasoning: The district court deemed an abuse of process per Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.
Double Jeopardy and Consecutive Sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Lee's argument that his consecutive sentences violated the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause was dismissed as procedurally barred and meritless due to a 1984 amendment allowing such sentences.
Reasoning: His double jeopardy argument was procedurally barred and meritless, citing a 1984 amendment to § 924(c) permitting consecutive sentences for firearm offenses.
Ex Post Facto Clause and Application of Statutory Amendmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Lee's ex post facto claim regarding the timing of the amendment's effectiveness was waived due to failure to raise it properly, and the court noted the amendment was effective upon enactment in 1984.
Reasoning: Even if it were not waived, the court previously rejected a similar argument... clarifying that the amendment's effective date pertained only to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Procedural Bar in Second or Successive Motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Lee's claims in his third § 2255 motion were barred because they were either previously adjudicated or not raised in earlier motions, failing to show cause and prejudice.
Reasoning: Lee's double jeopardy claim in his third motion was not previously raised, constituting an abuse of the procedure unless he shows cause and prejudice, which he cannot.