United States of America v. Palmer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS
KEITH RENE PALMER NO. 98-00004-BAJ
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner's pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To
Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence By A Person In Federal Custody.
(Doc. 70).
Petitioner seeks to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
(Doc. 70). The Government opposes Petitioner's Motion. (Doc. 76). For the reasons
below, Petitioner's Motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
In 1998, Petitioner initially faced a one-count Indictment for possessing a
firearm as a convicted felon. (Doc. 1; Doc. 66). The next month, while on pretrial
release after his initial appearance, he shot and injured two individuals. (Doc. 66 at
D.
Petitioner pleaded guilty in federal court to a three-count Superseding
Indictment for one count of unlawful receipt of a firearm by an indicted person and
two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. (Id.). In 1998, he was
sentenced to 175 months of imprisonment. {Id. at 1-2). The Court was silent as to
whether his federal sentences were to run consecutive or concurrent to any state
Case 3:98-cr-00004-BAJ Document 79 03/05/26 Page 1 of 8

sentence. (Id. at 2). Petitioner did not appeal from the judgment of conviction. (Doc.
70 at 2).
Petitioner was also prosecuted in state court for the shootings. In 2000, he was
found guilty in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton
Rouge of two counts of attempted first degree murder and one count of felon in
possession of a firearm. Palmer v. Cain, No. CIVA 07-708-C, 2008 WL 2536097,at *1
CiVI.D. La. June 24, 2008). He was sentenced in state court to 50 years of imprisonment
for the attempted murder charges and 15 years of imprisonment for the felon in
possession of a firearm count. (Id.).
Petitioner was first committed to state custody. (Doc. 66 at 2). In 2022, after
completing his state sentence, he was transferred to federal custody to serve his
federal sentence. (Doc. 76-1 at 2).
In 2017, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to correct and modify his sentence.
(Doc. 65). In his motion, Petitioner asked the Court to run his federal sentence
concurrent to his state sentence. (Id. at 1). The Court denied Petitioner's request,
finding that his federal sentence was meant to run consecutively with any state
sentence. (Doc. 66 at 3). The Court reasoned that, at federal sentencing, the Court
did not indicate whether the sentence was to run consecutive or concurrent to any
state sentence, and "if a district court is silent concerning whether a sentence is
consecutive or concurrent, 'the statutory presumption is that th[e] sentence [runs]
consecutively.'" {Id. (citing United States v. Candia, 454 F. 3d 468, 475
Case 3:98-cr-00004-BAJ Document 79 03/05/26 Page 2 of 8

(5th Cir. 2006))).
Petitioner again filed a pro se motion to run his federal sentence concurrent to
his completed state sentence, to grant him home confinement, and to grant him
compassionate release. (Doc. 68). A Ruling on the Motion is forthcoming.
Then, Petitioner filed the instant motion to vacate his conviction and sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 70). Because Petitioner's Motion is untimely and
procedurally barred, the Court will deny Petitioner's Motion.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Standard
Section 2255 is designed to remedy constitutional errors and other injuries that
could not be brought on direct appeal, and that would result in injustice if left
unaddressed. See United States v. WUUamson, 183 F.3d 458, 462 (5th Cir. 1999).
Specifically, the statute sets forth four grounds upon which relief may be granted:
(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 sentence ;
(3) "that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law ; or (4) that
the sentence "is otherwise subject to collateral attack." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); see Hill
v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 426-27 (1962). "Unless the motion and the files and
records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the
court shall. . . grant a prompt hearing." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).
A petitioner seeking relief under section 2255 must plead sufficient facts to
Case 3:98-cr-00004-BAJ Document 79 03/05/26 Page 3 of 8

establish a prima facie case of a constitutional violation. United States v. Woods,
870 F.2d 285, 287 (5th Cir. 1989). "[M]ere conclusory allegations on a critical issue
are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue." Id. at 288 n.3.
Finally, and importantly, the petitioner must show "actual prejudice" resulting
from a constitutional violation in order to warrant relief. Brecht v. Abrahamson,
507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993). "Actual prejudice" occurs when the constitutional error "had
substantial and injurious effect or influence" on the outcome of the proceeding. See
id. (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946)).
Section 2255 motions must follow strict timeliness and procedural
requirements. With respect to timeliness, relief under Section 2255 is subject to a
one-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). A Section 2255 motion must be
brought one year after "the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final."
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(l). A conviction is final when "a judgment of conviction has been
rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for
certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied." Griffith v. Kentucky,
479 U.S. 314, 321 n.6 (1987). There are four exceptions that allow a petitioner to file
a Section 2255 motion after the one-year final judgment deadline has passed; the only
relevant exception here is that a petitioner can file a Section 2255 motion one year
from the date on which he could have discovered new evidence supporting his claims
of an unconstitutional sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4) (A petitioner can file a motion
one year from "the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented
Case 3:98-cr-00004-BAJ Document 79 03/05/26 Page 4 of 8

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence."). The Supreme
Court has explained that "diligence can be shown by prompt action on the part of the
petitioner as soon as he is in a position to realize" that he should act. Johnson v.
United States, 544 U.S. 295, 308 (2005).
Section 2255 is also subject to strict procedural requirements. A collateral
challenge may not do service for an appeal. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 165
(1982). Instead, "Section 2255 provides recourse only for transgressions of
constitutional rights and for that narrow compass of other injury that could not have
been raised on direct appeal and would, if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage
of justice." United States v. Smith, 32 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal
quotations omitted). A petitioner "may not raise an issue for the first time on
collateral review without showing both 'cause' for his procedural default, and 'actual
prejudice resulting from the error. United States v. Shaid, 937 F.2d 228, 232
(5th Cir. 1991) (citing Frady, 456 U.S. at 168). The cause and actual prejudice
standard presents a significantly higher hurdle than the plain error standard that
courts apply on direct appeal. Frady, 456 U.S. at 166.
B. Discussion
In the Motion, Petitioner raises three reasons as to why his sentence should be
vacated, set aside, or corrected: (1) his federal sentence actually began in 1998 when
he was in the custody of the United States Marshal for one day to attend his
sentencing hearing; (2) he was sentenced to three Section 922 charges, which he
Case 3:98-cr-00004-BAJ Document 79 03/05/26 Page 5 of 8

claims exceeds the statutory maximum; and (3) his 175 month term of imprisonment
lies outside the sentencing guidelines.
The Court need not address the merits of Petitioner s arguments, however,
because the Motion is untimely and procedurally barred. The Motion is untimely
because Petitioner brought the Motion after the statute of limitations expired. The
Motion is procedurally barred because Petitioner did not raise his claims on direct
appeal. The Court will address each defect in turn.
1. Petitioner's Section 2255 Motion is Untimely.
First, Petitioner's Motion is untimely because he filed the Motion more than
one year after his conviction became final. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Petitioner's conviction
became final in 1998, so the latest Petitioner could have brought this IVEotion was in
1999. Id.; FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(l). But Petitioner did not initiate these proceedings
until 2023, well beyond the statute of limitations set forth in Section 2255(f).
Petitioner appears to invoke the Section 2255(f)(4) exception to the one-year
statute of limitations, which would allow him to bring the JVIotion if there existed any
newly discoverable evidence indicating that his sentence was imposed in violation of
the Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4). Petitioner states that he "just became aware
that [his] federal sentence was not over with, on 4-7-2022, and just learned of these
new facts pertaining to [his] case." (Doc. 70 at 11). However, in its 2018 Ruling, the
Court expressly informed Petitioner that his "federal sentence was to run consecutive
to any state sentence imposed." (Doc. 66 at 3). Assuming arguendo that Petitioner s
6
Case 3:98-cr-00004-BAJ Document 79 03/05/26 Page 6 of 8

realization was sufficient to satisfy the Section 2255(f)(4) exception, the latest
Petitioner could have brought this immediate motion was 2019, one year after the
Court's 2018 Ruling. Because Petitioner waited until 2023 to bring his Section 2255
Motion, his Motion is DENIED as untimely.
2. The Claims in Petitioner's Section 2255 Motion are
Procedurally Defaulted.
Second, the claims raised in Petitioner's Motion are procedurally defaulted
because Petitioner did not raise his claims on direct appeal before bringing this
collateral attack. Petitioner also does not meet the strict 'cause and actual prejudice'
exception to a procedural default. The exception applies when, for example, a
petitioner establishes actual innocence or the ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel. United States v. Gaudet, 81 F.3d 585, 589 (5th Cir. 1996). In explaining why
he did not raise his claims on appeal, Petitioner merely states that he only recently
became aware that his federal sentence began in 2022. (Doc. 70 at 5, 6, 8). Without
further expounding upon why he did not raise his issues on appeal or showing that
he suffered an actual prejudice from a constitutional error, the Court must conclude
that Petitioner fails to meet the rigorous strict 'cause and actual prejudice exception
to a procedural default. Therefore, in addition to his Motion being untimely, the
claims in Petitioner's Section 2255 Motion are procedurally defaulted. Petitioner s
Motion is DENIED.
7
Case 3:98-cr-00004-BAJ Document 79 03/05/26 Page 7 of 8

III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.SC. § 2255 to
Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody
(Doc. 70) be and is hereby DENIED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this ^ "*N ff.ay ofMarc]^., 2026
(^^BRIAN A. JACKSON/Jl]t)GE
UNITED STATES DI§T>RICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
8
Case 3:98-cr-00004-BAJ Document 79 03/05/26 Page 8 of 8