J. Jamieson v. United States
692 F.3d 435
6th Cir.2012Background
- Jamieson was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to defraud, money laundering (counts 2–100), money-laundered transactions (counts 101–157), and conspiracy to commit money laundering (count 158).
- He was sentenced in 2006 to 168 months on most counts, with other concurrent terms, under a Joint Stipulation that included a broad waiver of post-judgment rights conditioned on a 168-month or less sentence.
- After the 2009 Santos and Cuellar decisions, Jamieson moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.
- The district court denied the motion as untimely and for waivers; it declined to apply Santos/Cuellar retroactively.
- The Sixth Circuit held the § 2255 motion timely under § 2255(f)(3) but failed on the merits because the predicate offense for counts 2–157 did not cause a radical sentencing increase if merged, thus not satisfying Santos–Kratt framework.
- The court affirmed the district court’s denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under §2255(f)(3) applies? | Jamieson filed within a year of Santos/Cuellar. | District court concluded untimely under §2255(f)(1). | Timely under §2255(f)(3). |
| Waiver of §2255 rights in Joint Stipulation defeats relief? | Waiver should foreclose collateral attack. | Waiver valid unless sentence exceeded 168 months or ineffective assistance/prosecutorial misconduct. | Waiver alone did not preclude merits analysis; court chose not to decide waiver issue on merits. |
| Application of Santos-Kratt framework to predicate offense? | Proceeds means profits due to merger risk. | Predicate offense merges would not radicalize maximum sentence here. | Predicate = mail fraud; proceeds = gross receipts; no radical increase; Jamieson fails on Merger test. |
| Whether Santos/Cuellar retroactively apply to Jamieson’s case? | Rights recognized by Santos/Cuellar retroactive. | Cases not retroactive for Jamieson at district level. | Retroactive for § 2255 timing; motion timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2008) (definitions of proceeds; merger concerns; retroactivity of new rights)
- United States v. Kratt, 579 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2009) (Santos-Kratt three-part test for proceeds definition)
- Ward v. United States, 995 F.2d 1317 (6th Cir. 1993) (requires fundamental defect for § 2255 relief)
- Cosgrove v. United States, 637 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2011) (explains Santos-Kratt framework application)