United States v. Christopher Bailey

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6718 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/08/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6718

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER J. BAILEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:95-cr-00002-1; 2:16-cv- 06190)

Submitted: January 24, 2023 Decided: February 8, 2023

Before AGEE and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher J. Bailey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6718 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/08/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

We previously granted Christopher J. Bailey authorization to file a successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He now appeals the district court’s orders adopting in part the

magistrate judge’s recommendation, granting his § 2255 motion in part, vacating his 18

U.S.C. § 2261(a)(2) interstate domestic violence conviction and sentence, and denying

reconsideration. We affirm.

Bailey argues that a full resentencing hearing was required on his remaining 18

U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) kidnapping conviction under the sentencing package doctrine. The

form of relief awarded by the district court in a successful § 2255 proceeding is reviewed

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 667 (4th Cir. 2007). The

district court has “broad and flexible power . . . to fashion an appropriate remedy” in

granting relief on collateral review. United States v. Hillary, 106 F.3d 1170, 1171 (4th Cir.

1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). This court has held “that the district court is

authorized to conduct a resentencing in awarding relief pursuant to § 2255, not that the

district court is required, in resolving every § 2255 [motion], to conduct a resentencing.”

Hadden, 475 F.3d at 668. Thus, in a § 2255 proceeding, the district court may remedy an

unlawful sentence by one of the following: (1) releasing the prisoner, (2) granting the

prisoner a future new trial, or (3) imposing a new sentence either by (a) resentencing the

prisoner or (b) correcting the prisoner’s sentence. Id. at 667. “[T]he goal of § 2255 review

is to place the defendant in exactly the same position he would have been had there been

no error in the first instance.” Id. at 665 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-6718 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/08/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

Here, the sole harm to Bailey, as identified by the district court, was the invalid

conviction on the § 2261(a)(2) count. To “correct” this error, the district court vacated that

conviction and sentence. Contrary to Bailey’s assertion on appeal, we conclude that a

resentencing hearing was not required under these circumstances. See id. at 667 (“To

‘correct’ means to ‘make or set right.’ Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 280 (11th

ed. 2004). This is precisely what the district court did here.”). Finally, Bailey’s argument

that a resentencing hearing was required under the sentencing package doctrine is

foreclosed by Hadden. See id. at 669.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability as unnecessary, see id. at 664-66,

and affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED