United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
C. BUCKLEW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause comes before the Court on the following seven motions
followed by pro se Petitioner Freddie Wilson: 1)
motion to expand the record to include Petitioner's
notice of complaint that was filed with the Office of the
Inspector General (Civ. Doc. 85); 2) motion for
reconsideration of the Court's denial of Petitioner's
request to reopen his § 2255 proceedings (Civ. Doc. 86);
3) motion to expand the record to include examples of the
fraud committed by federal officers (Civ. Doc. 87); 4) motion
to expand the record to include the holding and ruling in
Fuller v. Georgia State Board of Pardons and
Paroles, 851 F.2d 1307 (11th Cir. 1988) (Civ. Doc. 88);
5) motion to expand the record to include a Florida
Sentinel Bulletin article (Civ. Doc. 89); 6) motion for
permission to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 90);
and 7) motion to expand the record to include the holding in
United States v. Stein, 846 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir.
2017) (Civ. Doc. 91). Upon consideration, each of
Petitioner's motions are DENIED.
was convicted by a jury of six counts of theft of government
property, five counts of aggravated identity theft, one count
of conducting an unlawful monetary transaction, and one count
of obstruction and sentenced to 102 months' imprisonment.
(Crim. Doc. 84). Petitioner's conviction and sentence
were affirmed on appeal. (Crim. Doc. 130). Petitioner's
amended motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set
aside, or correct his sentence was filed on December 16,
2015. (Civ. Doc. 5). In his § 2255 motion, Petitioner
argued that (1) his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was
violated because a jury did not decide his guilt on uncharged
counts, (2) the Court incorrectly calculated his loss at
sentencing, incorrectly applied the Sentencing Guidelines,
and incorrectly reached the amount of restitution he is
ordered to pay; (3) he received ineffective assistance of
counsel; and (4) his Eighth Amendment rights were violated
because he is innocent of the crimes charged in this case.
(Civ. Doc. 5). On July 11, 2016, this Court denied
Petitioner's § 2255 motion, finding that each of
Petitioner's claims were either previously decided
against him by the Eleventh Circuit, had been procedurally
defaulted, lacked merit, or were not a cognizable ground for
relief in a § 2255 motion. (Civ. Doc. 52). Judgment was
entered in favor of the Government on July 12, 2016. (Civ.
Motions to Expand the Record
Court first addresses Petitioner's five motions to expand
the record. Rule 7(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255
Cases in the United States District Courts states as
Rule 7. Expanding the Record
(a) In General. If the motion is not
dismissed, the judge may direct the parties to expand the
record by submitting additional materials relating to the
motion. The judge may require that these materials be
(b) Types of Materials. The materials that
may be required include letters predating the filing of the
motion, documents, exhibits, and answers under oath to
written interrogatories propounded by the judge. Affidavits
also may be submitted and considered as part of the record.
the record is fully within the discretion of the district
court and is unnecessary when the record is sufficient to
determine the merits of the case. See Prada v. United
States, No. 16-11704, 2017 WL 2210892, at *2 (11th Cir.
May 19, 2017).
first moves to expand the record to include a complaint
Petitioner purportedly filed with the Office of the Inspector
General. (Doc. 85). To the extent the Court can understand
Petitioner's argument, it appears he filed a complaint
against Christian Daley of the IRS and AUSA Josephine Thomas
alleging that the Government fabricated evidence against
Petitioner in his criminal case relating to the amount of
loss for which Petitioner was held accountable for at
sentencing. But Petitioner is not entitled to this relief.
This Court, as well as the Eleventh Circuit, have rejected
Petitioner's arguments concerning the amount of loss for
which he was held accountable at sentencing. Here, Petitioner
simply seeks to raise this argument once again. Moreover,
Petitioner has failed to attach the complaint he allegedly
filed with the Office of the Inspector General. Accordingly,
the Court denies Petitioner's motion to expand the record
to include this complaint (Civ. Doc. 85). For the same
reasons, the Court denies Petitioner's motion to expand
the record to include examples of the fraud committed by
federal officers (Civ. Doc. 87).
also seeks to expand the record to include a Florida
Sentinel Bulletin article regarding an individual who
was sentenced to a six year, two and one-half month prison
sentence for theft of government funds, possession of 15 or
more unauthorized access devices, use of unauthorized access
devices, aggravated identify theft, and false claims. (Civ.
Doc. 89). Petitioner claims that this article shows
sentencing disparities between that individual and
Petitioner. But, as explained above, Petitioner's
sentence has been affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit, and his
arguments regarding his sentencing have already been raised
and rejected by this Court. Accordingly, Petitioner's
motion to expand the record to include the Florida
Sentinel Bulletin article (Civ. Doc. 89) is denied.
Petitioner files two motions to expand the record to include
the holding in two different Eleventh Circuit cases. (Civ.
Docs. 88 and 91). Again, Petitioner improperly argues in each
of these motions that these cases support his position
regarding the amount of loss for which he was held
accountable at sentencing. Moreover, it is not proper for the
Court to expand the record to include case law. Accordingly,
these motions to expand the record (Civ. Docs. 88 and 91) are
Motion for Reconsideration
the Court addresses Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration of the Court's denial of Petitioner's
request to reopen his § 2255 proceedings (Civ. Doc. 86).
On August 1, 2017, the Court denied Petitioner's motion
to reopen his § 2255 proceedings pursuant to Rule 60(b),
in which Petitioner appeared to take issue with the amount of
loss the Court applied at sentencing. (Civ. Doc. 80). In that
order, the Court stated that this argument has already been
rejected by this Court and the Eleventh Circuit. (Civ. Doc.
80). Because a Rule 60(b) motion is not a vehicle for