Automated Summary
Key Facts
Eric Dorsey filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his 47-month prison sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Dorsey had multiple prior felony convictions including Armed Robbery (2000), Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse (2010), and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Felon (2015). On May 28, 2023, during a traffic stop in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Dorsey fled on foot from police and was apprehended while in possession of a loaded Smith & Wesson pistol. He pled guilty on October 12, 2023, and was sentenced on January 11, 2024. Dorsey's sole claim asserted that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022). The Court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, citing Eighth Circuit precedent in United States v. Jackson (2024) which held § 922(g)(1) constitutional.
Issues
The petitioner asserts that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The court must determine whether this constitutional challenge should be granted or dismissed as foreclosed by existing Eighth Circuit precedent.
Holdings
The court denied Petitioner Eric Dorsey's § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence without an evidentiary hearing, finding his claims waived, procedurally barred, or failing as a matter of law. The Court determined that the motion and case records conclusively show Dorsey is entitled to no relief, and refused to issue a certificate of appealability due to lack of substantial showing of a federal constitutional right denial.
Remedies
- The Court denied Petitioner Eric Dorsey's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, dismissing his claims as waived and procedurally barred or otherwise denying them without an evidentiary hearing.
- The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right.
Legal Principles
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the petitioner bears the burden of proof as to each asserted ground for relief. A motion filed under § 2255 should be denied without an evidentiary hearing when the court records conclusively show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Conclusory allegations will not suffice.
Precedent Name
- United States v. Lowry
- United States v. Jackson
- United States v. Cunningham
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen
- United States v. Mull
- United States v. Ware
Cited Statute
- 18 United States Code
- Title 28 United States Code
Judge Name
Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.
Passage Text
- After a thorough review of Dorsey's claim, the Court finds that 'the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that [Dorsey] is entitled to no relief[.]
- In his sole claim for relief, Dorsey asserts that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). However, Dorsey's claim is foreclosed by the Eighth Circuit's decision in United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024).
- Section 2255(a), a petitioner may file a motion for post-conviction review on four specified grounds: '(1) that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States,' (2) that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence,' (3) that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law,' and (4) that the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack.'