United States District Court, D. Minnesota
E. Allyn, on behalf of Plaintiff-Respondent.
Lee Caldwell, Pro Se
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD NELSON, District Judge
matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge
on Defendant- Petitioner Paige Lee Caldwell's pro se
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. [Doc. No.
73] The Government opposes Defendant-Petitioner's motion.
(Govt.'s Opp'n Mem. [Doc. No. 78].) Based on a review
of the file, record and proceedings therein, and for the
reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.
August 18, 2014, Defendant-Petitioner was charged in a
two-count indictment with one other defendant on drug
conspiracy-related charges. (Indictment [Doc. No. 1].)
Following a change of plea on February 18, 2015, on August
26, 2015, Defendant- Petitioner was sentenced to 36 months of
imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release on
a single count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute Oxycodone. (Sentencing J. [Doc. No.
did not file a direct appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals, and her conviction became final on September 9,
2015. On September 16, 2016, Defendant-Petitioner filed a
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside, vacate, or
correct her sentence. (Pro Se Mot. to Correct under
28 U.S.C. § 2255.)
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a),
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established
by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the
ground that the 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, may move the court
which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct
2255 generally affords relief, it is only available in
Eighth Circuit has held that:
[r]elief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for
transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow
range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct
appeal and, if uncorrected, would result in a complete
miscarriage of justice. A movant may not raise constitutional
issues for the first time on collateral review without
establishing both cause for the procedural default and actual
prejudice resulting from the error.
United States v. Apfel, 97 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th
Cir.1996) (citation omitted). Petitioner bears the burden of
proof as to each ground for relief. Kress v. United