United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Robert Czeck, Petitioner-Defendant, Pro Se.
Dunne, Assistant United States Attorney, United States
Attorney's Office, counsel for the Government.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DONOVAN W. FRANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Petitioner-Defendant Martin
Robert Czeck's (“Petitioner-Defendant”)
self-styled pro se motion under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendments 750
and 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the
“Guidelines”) as well as the Ex Post Facto Clause
of the United States Constitution. (Doc. No. ). The
United States of America (the “Government”)
opposes Petitioner-Defendant's motion. (Doc. No. .)
contends that his sentence was unconstitutional because it
was based on erroneous Guidelines calculations and he was
wrongly deemed subject to the Armed Career Criminal Act
(“ACCA”) enhancements applied. The Government
argues that Petitioner-Defendant's claims are without
merit and previous iterations of the same arguments have been
rejected, therefore the motion should be construed as an
unauthorized successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 and dismissed without an evidentiary hearing or
issuance of a certificate of appealability.
reasons set forth below, the Court denies
abbreviated version of the procedural history and record is
provided because this Court examined both at length in its
Memorandum and Order denying Petitioner-Defendant's
previous challenge to his sentence. (Doc. No. 182.)
filed his first § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence on
June 6, 1997. (Doc. No. 76.) Since that time,
Petitioner-Defendant has filed numerous motions for
post-conviction relief in three separate district courts,
including several applications for leave to file successive
§ 2255 motions, all of which were denied. Detailed
reviews of these events have been included and addressed in
prior documents in the record and will not be repeated here.
should be noted that in an Order issued on July 7, 2016, this
Court denied a motion by Petitioner-Defendant for a reduction
of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3482(c)(2).
(Doc. No. 166). The Court explained that Amendment 782 to the
Guidelines does not authorize or otherwise reduce the
sentencing range for an Armed Career Criminal, nor does it
grant this Court with the authority to do so. (Id.
at 4.) As this Court noted then, multiple federal courts,
including the Eighth Circuit, has previously rejected
Petitioner-Defendant's same claims. (Id. at 2,
n.1.) The Court also explained that it did not have
jurisdictional authority to address the post-sentencing
vacation of prior convictions, and any request to modify his
sentence based on vacation of prior convictions would
constitute an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion.
(Id.) Not long thereafter, this Court denied a
motion by Petitioner-Defendant for habeas relief under §
2255 for failure to obtain authorization from the Eighth
Circuit. (Doc. No. 172.)
filed another self-styled motion on November 17, 2017,
requesting leave to file an amended § 2255 motion
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) or, in the alternative, to
correct his sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). (Doc.
No. 178.) Petitioner-Defendant argued then that his sentence
under the ACCA was improper and that this Court erred in
treating his claims as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255. (Id.) This Court denied the motion in a
Memorandum and Order issued on March 1, 2018, again reasoning
that it must dismiss the motion because Petitioner-Defendant
had again failed to obtain the required authorization from
the Eighth Circuit. (Doc. No. 182 at 4.) Alternative relief
under Rule 60(b) was likewise denied because, as this Court
explained, that rule only applies to civil cases and further,
it cannot be used to reopen terminated § 2255
proceedings or to bypass the requirement for prior
authorization. (Id. at 5.) The Court further
explained that the motion was untimely and
Petitioner-Defendant failed to provide a reason to excuse the
delay. (Id. at 6.) Finally, the Court noted that
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), claims presented in second
or successive § 2255 habeas corpus petitions that were
presented in prior applications shall be dismissed.
(Id.) The Court required no evidentiary hearing to
reach this conclusion, and no certificate of appealability
was issued. (Id.)
Eighth Circuit denied Petitioner-Defendant's latest
application for a certificate of appealability on June 6,
2018. (Doc. No. 189.)
now requests that his sentence be reduced pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c), based on Amendments 750 and 782 to the
Guidelines regarding drug quantities and related sentencing
issues. Alternatively, Petitioner-Defendant seeks relief
under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(2).
Petitioner-Defendant argues that he is “actually
innocent” of having a criminal record that subjected
him to sentencing under the ...