United States v. Ocampo
919 F. Supp. 2d 898
E.D. Mich.2013Background
- Mid-2000s surveillance linked Petitioner Ocampo to a Saginaw, Michigan drug trafficking operation with cross-border trips and substantial cash and drug-related evidence seized at his residence and storage unit.
- Indictment (Oct 2006) charged seven counts, including conspiracy, maintaining a drug premises, marijuana distribution, possession with intent to distribute, felon in possession of a firearm (twice), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug offense.
- Trial in Nov 2007 led to guilty verdicts on all seven counts; sentences imposed in July 2008 totaled 360 months for counts 1,2,5,6 and 60 months for counts 3,4, with counts 1–6 concurrent and count 7 consecutive.
- On direct appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed; Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2011.
- In Aug 2011, Ocampo filed a §2255 motion; Magistrate Judge Binder recommended granting in part and denying in part, notably proposing merger of §922(g) counts based on single firearm possession.
- By Dec 2012, Petitioner sought to amend the §2255 petition to add a claim of counsel ineffectiveness during plea negotiations; Respondent moved to strike as untimely; the district court ultimately overruled objections, adopted the report, granted in part and denied in part, struck the amendment, and denied COA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §922(g) counts for a single firearm possession can be punished separately | Ocampo asserts multiplicity violates Double Jeopardy | Government contends per circuit precedent §922(g) can yield multiple punishments for separate classifications | Counts must be merged; multiple punishments for single possession barred |
| Whether appellate counsel’s failure to raise multiplicity was ineffective assistance | Counsel's omission prejudiced outcome | Trial issues were strategically chosen for sentencing focus | Ineffective assistance established; counts 5 and 6 merged; relief granted |
| Whether the §2255 amendment adding plea-counsel ineffectiveness is timely | Amendment would relate back and escape time bar | amendment untimely under §2255(f) | Untimely; motion to amend to add new ground struck |
| Whether procedural defaults on unraised claims barred relief | Counsel’s failures excused default | No excuse for default; claims lack merit | Procedural default upheld; claims denied beyond the multiplicity issue |
| Whether the §2255 limitations periods and relation-back principles preclude adding new grounds | New grounds relate back under Mayle | Not related back; be outside the operative facts | Amendment not relation back; time-bar sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Parker, 508 F.3d 434 (7th Cir.2007) (multiplicity under §922(g) rejected; unit of prosecution is possession)
- United States v. Richardson, 439 F.3d 421 (8th Cir.2006) (en banc; multiple punishments under §922(g) not allowed)
- United States v. Munoz-Romo, 989 F.2d 757 (5th Cir.1993) (nine classes of §922(g) defendants viewed as single crime; no multiple punishments)
- United States v. Dunford, 148 F.3d 385 (4th Cir.1998) (§922(g) multiple punishments barred for single possession)
- United States v. Winchester, 916 F.2d 601 (11th Cir.1990) (statutory structure signals single offense for firearm possession)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (standard to determine legislative intent in punishments overlapping offenses)
- Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (1983) (legislative intent governs multiple punishment analysis)
- Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (1984) (double jeopardy protections include multiple punishments clause)
- Federal and Sixth Circuit precedent cited by the court (general), 434 F.3d 447 (6th Cir.2006) (DeCarlo - Blockburger test remains standard when congressional intent unclear)