United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Motion and Supplement to the Motion filed by Defendant/Movant
Frank Medina, Jr. (hereinafter "Defendant"). (Docs.
50, 55). The Government has filed a Response and a Supplement
to the Response (Docs. 56, 57), and Defendant has filed a
Reply (Doc. 58). The § 2255 motion is now
ripe for consideration. An evidentiary hearing is not
warranted in this matter, as the § 2255 motion, files,
and records in this case conclusively show that Defendant is
not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
2255(b); Jeffries v. United States, 721 F.3d 1008,
1014 (8th Cir. 2013).
January 29, 2014, Defendant was indicted on one count of
conspiring to distribute methamphetamine; three counts of
distributing more than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine;
and one count of possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1). (Doc. 1.) On April 1, 2014, Defendant pled guilty
before United States Magistrate Judge Erin L.
Wiedemann to one count of distributing more than 50
grams of actual methamphetamine. (Doc. 19.) Judge Wiedemann
issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20), recommending
that Defendant's guilty plea be accepted, and noting that
Defendant waived his right to file objections to the Report
and Recommendation both on the record at the plea hearing and
in his written plea agreement (Doc. 19 ¶ 3). On April 2,
2014, the undersigned adopted the Report and Recommendation
and accepted Defendant's guilty plea. (Doc. 21.) On
October 17, 2014, the undersigned sentenced Defendant to 210
months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. (Doc.
45.) Defendant did not file a direct appeal.
filed the instant pro se Motion to Vacate under 28
U.S.C. § 2255, asserting the following grounds for
indictment procedure was flawed in the following ways:
* a complaint detailing the essential facts of the offenses
charged was never filed;
*he was not allowed to testify or present exculpatory
evidence during the grand jury proceedings;
*the indictment failed to set forth a specific drug amount or
drug type (d- or l-Methamphetamine); and
* the indictment was not signed or made under oath.
(2) His guilty plea before a Magistrate Judge was
(3) His conviction only subjected him to a 5-year mandatory
minimum as opposed to a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence.
(4) His 210-month sentence creates an unwarranted sentencing
(5) The record failed to establish whether he was
"sentenced for d- or L-Methamphetamine." (Doc. ...