United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
MORALES HOWARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case is before the Court on Petitioner Antwan Cameron's
Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person
in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, (Civ. Doc. 1,
Motion to Vacate). The United States has responded (Civ. Doc.
4, Response), and Cameron has replied (Civ. Doc. 7, Reply).
Cameron also filed an Amended Motion to Vacate (Civ. Doc. 10,
Amended Motion to Vacate), to which the United States has
responded as well (Civ. Doc. 12, Response to Amended Motion).
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Proceedings, the Court has considered the need for
an evidentiary hearing and determines that an evidentiary
hearing is not necessary to resolve the merits of this
action. See Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708,
714-15 (11th Cir. 2002) (an evidentiary hearing on a §
2255 petition is not required when the petitioner asserts
allegations that are affirmatively contradicted by the record
or patently frivolous, or if in assuming the facts that he
alleges are true, he still would not be entitled to any
relief); Holmes v. United States, 876 F.2d 1545,
1553 (11th Cir. 1989) (a petitioner's ineffective
assistance claim can be dismissed without an evidentiary
hearing when the petitioner alleges facts that, even if true,
would not entitle him to relief); Patel v. United
States, 252 F. App'x 970, 975 (11th Cir.
2007). For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion to Vacate is due to be denied.
stands convicted of one count of making a false or fictitious
statement while attempting to acquire a firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2).
Eleventh Circuit summarized the facts of the offense as
In November 2011, Defendant Cameron and Allison Gornail
visited Shooters of Jacksonville (“Shooters”), a
store that sells firearms and ammunition. Cameron and Gornail
spoke with the store manager. Gornail expressed an interest
in purchasing an AK-47 assault rifle for herself.
The store manager suspected that Gornail was actually
purchasing the firearm for Cameron, and not for her own
personal use, because Gornail did not know why she was buying
the firearm, whereas Cameron was very knowledgeable about the
firearm. After Cameron attempted to pay for the firearm, the
store manager asked Cameron to fill out a Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Form 4473 (“ATF
form”), which has to be completed before an individual
can buy a firearm.
The ATF form requires a buyer of a firearm to provide his
name and address and state whether the buyer is the
“actual transferee/buyer” of the firearm. The ATF
form also includes a warning, which provides that
“[y]ou are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring
the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.
If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer
the firearm(s) to you.” Question 11i of the ATF form
asks whether the buyer, here Defendant Cameron, has a
conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The
instructions for question 11i of the ATF form set forth the
statutory definition of a “misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence.” If a buyer represents on the ATF
form that he has a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence, the buyer is disqualified from buying a
In filling out the ATF form, Defendant Cameron represented
that he, and not Gornail, was the actual transferee/buyer of
the AK-47. Cameron also represented that he had never been
convicted in a court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence. Finally, Cameron certified that his answers on the
ATF form were true and correct and that he read and
understood the notices, instructions, and definitions on the
After Defendant Cameron completed the form, Shooters
conducted a background check of Cameron through the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE”). The FDLE
reported that Cameron was ineligible to buy the firearm.
Thus, Shooters could not sell Cameron the firearm. Once
Cameron and Gornail left Shooters, the store manager notified
law enforcement about Cameron's attempt to purchase the
United States v. Cameron, 547 F. App'x 942,
943-44 (11th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original) (footnotes
omitted). As it turned out, Cameron was ineligible to buy a
firearm because he did have a prior conviction for a crime of
domestic violence, contrary to his answer on ATF Form 4473.
a grand jury sitting in the Middle District of Florida
charged Cameron with one count of making a false or
fictitious statement to a federally licensed firearms dealer.
Cameron pled not guilty and proceeded to trial.
At Cameron's trial, a government witness testified that,
in November 2004, Cameron pled guilty to actually and
intentionally touching or striking a family or household
member, against her will or intentionally causing bodily harm
to that person, in violation of Fla. Statutes §§
784.03 and 741.28. There was no objection to this testimony.
The government introduced into evidence the information
charging Cameron with domestic battery and the judgment.
Later at trial, Cameron testified in his own defense that, in
November 2011, Gornail asked for his assistance in purchasing
a firearm for her protection. He went with Gornail to
Shooters to assist her in purchasing a firearm. Cameron also
intended to pay for the firearm Gornail selected. At the
store, once Cameron indicated that he would pay for the
firearm, a Shooters employee asked Cameron to fill out an ATF
form. Cameron testified that, on the ATF form, he represented
that he was the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm
because he believed that, if he did not make that
representation, Shooters would not complete the firearm sale.
Cameron further testified that, on the ATF form, he
represented that he did not have a prior conviction for a
misdemeanor domestic violence conviction because the
documents in his possession showed that he only had a prior
conviction for battery, not domestic battery.
Furthermore, prior to pleading guilty to what he now knew was
domestic battery, he only “vaguely” remembered
the judge explaining to him the details about the charges
On cross-examination, the government asked Cameron about the
events of October 6, 2004, the date of the domestic battery.
At side bar, Cameron's counsel objected to the government
eliciting the underlying details of the domestic battery
offense because Cameron had admitted he committed the
battery. Cameron's counsel stated that it was
“irrelevant and overly prejudicial to get into the
details of the battery.” The district court requested
that the government first ask questions that related to
[Mikeisha] Frison's relationship with Cameron and whether
Cameron admitted to having committed the battery. The court
stated that, depending on Cameron's answers, the
government might not need to address the underlying conduct
that constituted the battery. Following the court's
resolution of his objection, Cameron stated
The government thus asked Cameron whether he recalled
committing a battery on Mikeisha Frison on October 6, 2004,
and he answered affirmatively. Cameron clarified that he did
not know at the time of the 2011 attempted firearm purchase
that he had committed a domestic battery, because he
thought that he and Frison had to be “official
boyfriend and girlfriend” for his actions toward Frison
to constitute domestic battery.
Cameron affirmed that he now knew, “if you batter the
mother of your child, that ... is domestic battery.” At
the time of the battery, Cameron, however, was uncertain as
to whether he was the father of Frison's child. Cameron
claimed that, although he had never contested paternity, he
had doubts as to whether he was actually the child's
father because Frison had cheated on him. Nevertheless, on
the date of the battery, Cameron knew that, “at least,
according to the child's mother, the birth certificate
and anybody else who had ever been told, ” he was the
father of Frison's child. The government then asked
whether Frison was pregnant with Cameron's second child
at the time of the battery, and Cameron responded
Cameron also testified that he recalled being charged with
two offenses in connection with the October 2004 incident.
Cameron conceded that his public defender offered Cameron a
plea bargain with respect to one of the charges, which was a
felony charge, but he did not want to take that offer. The
following exchange then occurred between the government and
Cameron, which led to this discussion of the details of the
Q. And why didn't you want to take the offer?
A. At the time, I felt since I called the police, that I
wasn't wrong. But apparently in those situations, I'm
wrong, regardless of who actually called the police.
Q. You're not denying that you struck Mikeisha Frison on
October 6th, 2004, are you?
A. I'm not denying it. She had a bruise. I can't say
when it became apart, but she had a bruise and, subsequently,
we were struggling at a point.
Q. Okay. You were struggling and fighting with her?
A. Yes, sir.
Cameron, however, did not subsequently object to the
government's questions or move to strike his ...