Man can't collaterally attack sentence again

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has again denied a man's attempt to have his drug conviction overturned or sentence reduced because he had used the one 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 motion he was allowed and he can't challenge his sentence again under the same section.

Kevin Unthank appealed his 262-month sentence for drug convictions in Kevin Unthank v. Brian Jett, Warden, Federal Correctional Institute at Terre Haute, Indiana, No. 08-1417, something he had been doing for more than a decade, the federal appellate court noted.

Unthank filed his latest post-conviction appeal in 2007 after he was transferred to the prison in Terre Haute. U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney dismissed that petition.

Unthank appealed because he believed since one of his state convictions was vacated, his federal sentence should be reduced. But his collateral attack in his 1998 motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 blocks access to the kind of review of his case authorized by Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (2005), wrote Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook. Section 2255 allows for only one collateral attack unless a prisoner meets the conditions under subsection (h), which Unthank doesn't qualify for, wrote the chief judge.

Unthank also can't use Section 2241 to challenge his sentence, which he thinks can be used when a motion under Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. The case, Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2002), rejected this line of argument, wrote Chief Judge Easterbrook.

"If Unthank wanted to use (Section) 2255 to argue for a lower sentence after asking a state court to vacate one or more of his prior convictions, he had only to refrain from filing a collateral attack until the state court had acted," he wrote. "He may have used unwisely the one (Section) 2255 motion allowed as of right, but he did use it in 1998 and has not met the statutory requirements for an additional round of collateral review."


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.