United States District Court, District of Columbia
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Pro Se Defendant William
Bowman's  Motion for Leave to File Notice of Appeal
and/or Motion for Reconsideration; the United States'
 Opposition to the Defendant's Motion; and the
Defendant's  Pro Se Reply to the
Opposition. Defendant William Bowman (“Defendant”
or “Mr. Bowman”) requests that this Court
reconsider its December 3, 2018 Order denying his Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, wherein Defendant requested that this Court
vacate or reduce his sentence based upon his claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel and his challenges to the
constitutionality of his sentence regarding the firearms
charge and the drug conspiracy charge.Upon a searching
review of the parties' submissions, the relevant
authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court finds that
Mr. Bowman is not entitled to the requested relief.
Accordingly, the Court shall DENY Mr. Bowman's 
Motion for Leave to File Notice of Appeal and/or Motion for
Arrest and Conviction
superseding indictment filed on September 17, 2012, Mr.
Bowman was charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more
of cocaine, three counts of using, carrying and possessing a
firearm during a drug trafficking offense, three counts of
distribution of cocaine, and two counts of unlawful
distribution of cocaine base occurring on July 1 and 7, 2000.
Redacted Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 440. Upon motion by
the Government, the two counts of unlawful distribution of
cocaine base occurring on July 1 and 7, 2000 were dismissed
by the Court on October 11, 2012. Two of the counts of using,
carrying and possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking
offense were consolidated into one count before the case went
to the jury.
November 20, 2012, following a month long jury trial, the
jury found Mr. Bowman guilty on the following charges: 1)
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine (21 U.S.C.
§§ 846, 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii)) (Count One),
three counts of distribution of cocaine (21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(C)) (Counts
Three-Five), and one count of using, carrying, and possessing
a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)) (Count Two). Verdict
Form, ECF No. 653. During most of his pretrial and trial
proceedings, Mr. Bowman was represented by a court-appointed
attorney, Mr. Dwight Crawley. CJA 20 Appointment, ECF No. 24.
Sentencing and Appeal
court held a sentencing hearing on April 9, 2013, and Mr.
Bowman was sentenced to two hundred forty (240) months of
imprisonment on Counts 1, 3, 4 and 5, to run concurrently,
and a term of three hundred (300) months of imprisonment on
Count 2, to run consecutively to Counts 1, 3, 4 and 5,
together with a supervised release period of one hundred and
twenty (120) months on Count 1, sixty (60) months on Count 2,
and seventy-two (72) months on Counts 3, 4, and 5, with
supervised release running concurrently. Judgment in a
Criminal Case, ECF No. 761. Mr. Bowman and co-defendant Mr.
Williams directly appealed the judgment, but the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
rejected Mr. Bowman's claims and affirmed his conviction
on July 8, 2016. United States v. Henry Brandon
Williams, 827 F.3d 1134 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert
den., 137 S.Ct. 706 (2017)
Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2255
Bowman filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, which was
premised on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel
related to his trial counsel, Dwight Crawley, and his
appellate counsel, Julian S. Greenspun. More specifically,
Mr. Bowman claimed that his trial counsel failed to
“address[ ] the fact that [he] was willing to accept a
plea without inducing any other co-defendants to
plea[d]” and to inform the Government that Mr. Bowman
“still wanted to accept a plea” before trial and
further, that counsel did not properly advise him of the
consecutive nature of sentencing on the firearms counts.
Def.'s Mot. To Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, ECF
No. 961, at 4-5. Mr. Bowman asserted generally that his
appellate counsel failed to raise these same issues on
appeal. Additionally, Mr. Bowman claimed that his trial
counsel visited him rarely and he challenged the alleged
unconstitutionality of the punishment imposed for his
firearms and drug conspiracy convictions. On December 3,
2018, this Court issued its  Memorandum Opinion finding
that Mr. Bowman had “not proven that his [trial
]counsel behaved in a professionally unreasonable manner
which unjustly prejudiced him, and neither prong of the
standard in [the] Strickland [case] had been
met.” December 3, 2018 Mem. Op., ECF No.1004, at 12.
Furthermore, Mr. Bowman had “not established deficient
performance or prejudice with respect to his appellate
counsel” and his “claims that his sentences on
the firearms and drug conspiracy charges [were]
unconstitutional [were] procedurally barred because these
claims were not raised on direct appeal nor [did] he show
cause or prejudice.” Id. at 15. Accordingly,
the Court denied Mr. Bowman's  Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
December 3, 2018 Order, ECF No. 1003.
Motion to File Notice of Appeal and/or for
 Motion to File Notice of Appeal and/or for
Reconsideration (“Def's Mot.”), Defendant
argues generally that the Court's decision is
“contrary to establish[ed] law concerning 6th Amendment
Rights, ” because he satisfied “both parts of the
two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v.
Washington.” Def.'s Mot., ECF No. 1011, at
1-2. Defendant provides no information relevant to his claim
that counsel was ineffective other than the same statements
that were previously proffered to this Court. Defendant does
assert however that the First Step Act of 2018 “gives
discretion to the district court to reevaluate
petitioner's judgment and conviction, ” with
respect to his conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
924(c). Id. at 2. The United States filed its 
Opposition to the Defendant's Motion, and Defendant filed
his  Reply, wherein he raised for the first time a
claim relating to the holding in United States v.
Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019) (finding unconstitutionally
vague the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)).
Motion is ripe for resolution by this Court.