Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Renrick

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division

August 30, 2019

UNITED STATES,
v.
THOMAS MOUYER RENRICK, IV, Defendant.

          ORDER AND OPINION

         Defendant Thomas Mouyer Renrick, IV is a prisoner currently serving a sentence of one hundred twenty-one (121) months in the Bureau of Prisons. (ECF No. 1746.)

         This matter is before the court on Renrick's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 1779.) In addition, Renrick has also filed documents construed as a Motion for Review of the Presentence Report Calculation (ECF No. 1796), a successive Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 1814), and a Motion for Relief for Failure to Prosecute (ECF No. 1857). For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES each of Renrick's Motions.

         I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND TO PENDING MOTIONS

         On August 17, 2011, the Grand Jury named Renrick and specified co-Defendants in a Third Superseding Indictment on numerous drug distribution/trafficking charges. (ECF No. 697.) On September 20, 2011, Renrick signed a written plea agreement (ECF No. 815) agreeing

to plead guilty to Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment now pending, which charges that, within the District of South Carolina and elsewhere, beginning at least in 2004, the Defendant conspired with others to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, 280 grams or more of cocaine base (commonly known as “crack” cocaine), both Schedule II controlled substances, and 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, all in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a), (b)(1)(A) and 846.

(ECF No. 815 at 1.) On September 20, 2011, the court accepted Renrick's change of plea (ECF No. 823) and sentenced him to one hundred forty-four (144) months imprisonment on May 17, 2012. (ECF Nos. 1247, 1268.) The court entered the Judgment on May 18, 2012. (ECF No. 1268.) Thereafter, Renrick filed a pro se direct appeal on July 25, 2012 (ECF No. 1356), but voluntarily dismissed his case pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, effective December 3, 2012. (See ECF No. 1453-1.)

         On June 9, 2015, the United States Probation Office (“USPO”) informed the court that Renrick was entitled to a sentence reduction because “the advisory guideline range applicable to the defendant was lowered as a result of the retroactive application of the 2014 drug guidelines.” (ECF No. 1691 at 1.) As a result, on August 20, 2015, the court reduced Renrick's sentence to one hundred twenty-one (121) months. (ECF No. 1746.)

         On December 5, 2016, Renrick filed his Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 1779) presenting the following grounds for relief:

Ground One: invalid prior state court convictions were used to enhance my sentence.
Ground Two: my probation revocation on the charges cited in ground one was illegal.
Ground Three: the three state convictions have placed detainer status on my federal sentence.
Ground Four: the prosecution at bar violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.

(Id. at 4-8.) Subsequently, Renrick filed his Motion for Review of the Presentence Report Calculation (ECF No. 1796) on July 31, 2017, complaining that the USPO should have counted his prior convictions as relevant conduct and not predicate offenses. (Id. at 1.) A year later, he filed a successive Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 1814) on August 2, 2018, presenting the following six (6) additional grounds for vacating his sentence.

Ground One: counsel was ineffective for not challenging Petitioner's state priors upon ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.