Final Report and Recommendation — USA v. Hopkins (N.D. Ga.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS · Doc. 49 · 2024-02-26 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
HARRESCIA HOPKINS, 
BOP ID 15535-510, 
Movant, 
 
v. 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Respondent. 
 
 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 
1:23-CV-3612-SEG-CMS 
 
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 
1:22-CR-284-SEG-CMS 
 
 
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
 
On December 20, 2022, former United States Penitentiary–Atlanta 
correctional officer Harrescia Hopkins entered into a negotiated guilty plea 
agreement, and the Court accepted her plea after a Rule 11 hearing.  See [Docs. 19, 
19-1, 25].  Hopkins’ sentencing proceedings were delayed after she “called into 
question whether [her] plea should stand.”  [Doc. 31 at 5].  The Court then conducted 
a second Rule 11 colloquy and stated that it was “satisfied that she does, indeed, 
stand by the entry of the plea that occurred in December of last year.”  [Id. at 11]. 
On June 9, 2023, the Court sentenced Hopkins to a five-month term of 
imprisonment and two years of supervised release.  See [Doc. 35].  Hopkins’ time to 
surrender was twice extended at her request.  See [Docs. 37, 38, 40, 42, 43]. 
Hopkins subsequently moved to vacate her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2255 or, alternatively, for a sentence reduction pursuant to United States 
Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS     Document 49     Filed 02/26/24     Page 1 of 3

2 
 
Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 821.  See [Docs. 44, 46, 47].  Hopkins’ § 2255 
motion, as amended, was referred to me, but her sentence reduction motion was not. 
It now appears that Hopkins has completed the custodial portion of her 
sentence and been released from prison.  See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc// (last 
viewed Feb. 26, 2024; searched for “Hopkins, Harrescia”; stating “Released On: 
02/09/2024”).  And it further appears from the docket (which still lists her address 
as “FMC Lexington Atwood Unit”) that Hopkins has not provided the Court with an 
updated address since she was released more than two weeks ago. 
Civil Local Rule 41.2(B) provides that “[t]he failure . . . of a party appearing 
pro se to keep the clerk’s office informed of any change in address and/or telephone 
number which causes a delay or otherwise adversely affects the management of the 
case shall constitute grounds for either dismissal of the action without prejudice or 
for entry of a default judgment.”  Accord LR 83.1(D)(3), NDGa.  Hopkin’s failure 
to update her address adversely affects the management of this case because the 
Court has no valid address at which to contact her at present. 
Accordingly, I RECOMMEND that Hopkins’ § 2255 motion, as amended, 
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1   
 
1 Because Hopkins was not sentenced until June 2023 and judgment did not 
become final until the appeal period ended, she has until roughly the end of June 
Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS     Document 49     Filed 02/26/24     Page 2 of 3

3 
 
I further RECOMMEND that a certificate of appealability be DENIED 
because Hopkins does not meet the requisite standard.  See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 
U.S. 473, 475 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 
SO REPORTED, RECOMMENDED, ORDERED, AND DIRECTED, 
this 26th day of February, 2024. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2024 to refile her § 2255 motion and provide an updated address, should she elect to 
do so.  See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1).   
Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS     Document 49     Filed 02/26/24     Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.306194.49.0.pdf

Size

308,105 bytes

SHA-256

b04bea3e1685d1b9bcacef14e702f8aae4da75b146331fc4344dcf856babf1da

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.306194.49.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)