United States District Court, D. Maine
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON RULE 52(b) AND 60(a)
C. NIVISON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
action, Petitioner Xavier Watson seeks relief from the
Court's orders denying his motion for relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. (Motions, ECF No. 306, 306-1.)
Petitioner, citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(b) and
60(a), questions whether the Court properly considered and
ruled on certain claims he raised in a series of filings
supplementing his § 2255 motion.
a review of Petitioner's filings and the record, I
recommend the Court deny Petitioner's motions. (ECF No.
History and Discussion
2017, following a guilty plea, Petitioner was convicted of
Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Count 2); and
aiding and abetting the brandishing of a firearm in
furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(Count 3); the Court sentenced Petitioner to prison terms
totaling 121 months. (Judgment, ECF No. 177 at 1-2.) In
February 2018, the Court amended the sentence, resulting in
prison terms totaling 115 months. (Id.; Amended
Judgment, ECF No. 264 at 1-2.) Petitioner did not appeal from
the conviction or the sentence.
14, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or
correct the sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
(Motion, ECF No. 276.) On October 1, 2018, in response to the
Government's answer to the motion, Petitioner filed a
motion to buttress his original arguments. (Motion, ECF No.
279.) On October 24, 2018, I granted Petitioner's motion
to buttress and recommended the Court deny Petitioner's
request for relief on his § 2255 motion. (Recommended
Decision, ECF No. 283; Amended Recommended Decision, ECF No.
285.) In December 2018, Petitioner filed
additional motions to buttress and supplement his § 2255
claims, along with several other motions. (Motions, ECF Nos.
291 - 96, 298 - 99). The Court granted one of the motions to
buttress on December 28, 2018, and on January 4, 2019, the
Court accepted the recommended decision and denied
Petitioner's § 2255 motion. (Order, ECF No. 303.)
February 5, 2019, I issued two additional recommended
decisions addressing Petitioner's other motions,
including the motions to buttress and supplement his §
2255 claims. (Orders, ECF Nos. 307 - 08). The Court accepted
the recommended decisions on March 19, 2018, denying
Petitioner's additional motions. (Orders, ECF Nos. 309 -
on February 1, 2019, shortly before the two additional
recommended decisions were docketed, Petitioner filed the
motions presently before the Court. (Motions, ECF No. 306,
306-1.) Petitioner seeks relief from the denial of his §
2255 motion based oin his other motions to buttress or
supplement, which were pending when the Court ruled on the
§ 2255 motion. Petitioner asserts the motions would have
been filed earlier but for his inadvertence or mistake.
(Motion, ECF No. 306.) Petitioner, citing Abbott v.
Perez, 138 S.Ct. 2305, 2319, (2018), contends the
Court's denial of his § 2255 motion had the
practical effect of denying the constitutional claims in his
other pending motions to buttress and supplement.
February 2019, the Court, through the adoption of the
recommended decisions, addressed the arguments Petitioner
made in his many filings. As explained in the recommended
decisions, even if Petitioner had presented all of his
arguments timely, Petitioner's arguments would have
failed because the arguments lack merit. The Court has
addressed Petitioner's arguments in detail, and
additional or amended findings under Rule 52(b) are not
warranted, nor is Petitioner entitled to relief from the
Court's earlier orders under Rule 60(a).
on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court deny
Petitioner's motions. (ECF No. 306, 306-1.)
may file objections to those specified portions of a
magistrate judge's report or proposed findings or
recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court
is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within
fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy thereof. A
responsive memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14)
days after the filing of the objection.
to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the
right to de novo review by the district court and to ...