United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
October 18, 2005.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DONALD G. JACKMAN Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MAURICE COHILL JR., Senior District Judge
Petitioner Donald G. Jackman, Jr. has a pending Motion to
Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 filed at Criminal No. 00-72 (Doc.
140), and assigned Civil Action No. 04-1098.
Presently before the Court are Mr. Jackman's Renewed Motion for
Bond (Doc. 4); Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 3), and Motion
for Production of Audiotapes (Docs. 1 & 2), filed at Civil No.
04-1098; as well as Mr. Jackman's Motion for Leave to File for
Discovery (Doc. 151), Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 152),
Motion for Judicial Review of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Denial (Doc. 153), and Motion for Judicial Review (Doc. 154),
filed at Cr. No. 00-72. For the reasons stated below we will deny
Renewed Motion for Bond
Mr. Jackman was first ordered detained in his underlying
criminal action in March, 2000, following a detention hearing.
(Docs. 8, 9, & 10) Mr. Jackman filed a Motion to be Admitted to
Bail (Doc. 52), dated November 16, 2001. The Court orally denied
that motion after a hearing on January 9, 2002. (Doc. 63)
On February 14, 2002, a jury found Donald Jackman guilty of
possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of
26 U.S.C. §§ 5661(d) and 5871. Following the jury verdict, Mr. Jackman pled
guilty to possession of firearms by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) on February 15,
2002. On September 17, 2002, Mr. Jackman was sentenced to 120
months' imprisonment for the possession of an unregistered
firearm charge, and 262 months' imprisonment for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon
charge, to be served concurrently for a total term of
imprisonment of 262 months. He timely filed an appeal from his
conviction on September 26, 2002. The Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence on October 6,
In his present motion for Bond, Mr. Jackman contends that he
should be released on bond because he is actually innocent, that
no crime was committed, and that there was no victim. In part Mr.
Jackman raises arguments presented in his 2255 motion. Those
arguments have yet to be determined by the Court. Merely
presenting arguments is an insufficient basis for granting bond
in this case.
He also argues on the basis of 8 U.S.C. § 1481, that it was
never established that any act of expatriation was committed by
him, and therefore he never actually lost his citizenship. Title
8 concerns Aliens and Nationality, and section 1481 concerns the
loss of nationality by a native-born or naturalized citizen.
Section 1481 of Title 8 is irrelevant to the instant matter. Mr.
Jackman presents a fuller version of this argument in his
Supplemental Memorandum of Law filed in support of his 2255
motion. Mr. Jackman is referring to his claim presented before
trial, on appeal, and in his 2255 motion that at the time he was
arrested he had all of his rights of citizenship and thus he was
legally entitled to possess firearms. He argues in part that
there are irreconcilable differences between aspects of the
criminal statute in 18 U.S.C. § 921 and 8 U.S.C. § 1481. No
matter how one approaches the question of whether Mr. Jackman had
the right to possess firearms contrary to his conviction for
possession of firearms by a convicted felon in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e), Title 8 of the United States Code
is not implicated. Accordingly, we will deny Mr. Jackman's motion
Motion for Summary Judgment
In his motion for summary judgment Mr. Jackman seeks judgment
in his favor arguing, in part, that over a year has passed in
this matter without any adjudication or explanation as to why the
matter has not been heard. He also refers generally to the issues
raised in his 2255 motion and contends in a supporting affidavit that the government cannot put
forth any evidence to counter his motion for summary judgment. Of
course, the government has filed a response to Mr. Jackman's
arguments presented in his 2255 motion. Mr. Jackman filed a reply
to the government's response in October, 2004, and his
supplemental brief in support of his motion was filed on December
2, 2004. Thus, while more than a year has passed since the
original 2255 motion was filed, it was not ready for review until
December, 2004. In addition, as late as May 10, 2005, Mr. Jackman
filed a motion seeking discovery materials that he contends are
necessary for a fair and just adjudication of his pending 2255
motion. Mr. Jackman's motion will be decided on the merits, we
find no reason to grant summary judgment in favor of Mr. Jackman
and will deny his motion.
Mr. Jackman has filed a Motion for Production of Audiotapes,
Motion for Leave to File for Discovery, and a Motion to Compel
Discovery. He has also filed a Motion for Judicial Review of
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Denial, and a Motion for
Judicial Review that also concerns his FOIA request. All of the
above motions concern Mr. Jackman's endeavor to gather a variety
of materials. Our review of his motions reveals no basis for
granting his motions. With respect to his motion for audiotapes
of court proceedings we note that the court did not audiotape any
of the proceedings in this matter, and is not aware of the
existence of any audio tape of the proceedings. Accordingly, we
will deny Mr. Jackman's motions.
AND NOW, to-wit, this 18th day of October, 2005, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:
1. Petitioner's Renewed Motion for Bond (Doc. 4 at
Civ. No. 04-1098) be and hereby is DENIED;
2. Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 3 at Civ. No.
04-1098) be and hereby is DENIED;
3. Motion for Production of Audiotapes (Docs. 1 & 2
at Civ. No. 04-1098) be and hereby are DENIED; 4. Motion for Leave to File for Discovery (Doc. 151
at Cr. No. 00-72) be and hereby is DENIED;
5. Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 152 at Cr. No.
00-72) be and hereby is DENIED;
6. Motion for Judicial Review of Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) Denial (Doc. 153 at Cr. No.
00-72) be and hereby is DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.