Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-08047/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-08047-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LADERRIOUS LAMAR MCKINNEY )

)

vs. ) Case No. 2:16-cv-08047-VEH

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner, Laderrious Lamar McKinney, has filed a Motion to Vacate, Set

Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He contends that his

sentence was improperly enhanced, relying upon Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S.

___, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). As relief, he requests that the Court

vacate his sentence and resentence him without enhancement. Because, as explained

below, Johnson has no application to the facts of Petitioner’s sentence, his Petition

is due to be denied.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner was indicted on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).1(Doc. 1, United States v. McKinney, No. 2:11-

1 The indictment specified that petitioner was convicted in the Circuit Court of Jefferson

County, Alabama, on June 20, 2008, of first degree receiving stolen property, unlawful breaking and

entering of a vehicle, and first degree theft of property; and petitioner was convicted in the Circuit

Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, on September 16, 2009, of unlawful distribution of a controlled

substance. 

FILED

 2016 May-27 PM 01:35

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:16-cv-08047-VEH Document 2 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 5
cr-00368-VEH-HGD, Indictment). He was convicted based on his plea of guilty on

November 27, 2012. (United States v. McKinney, No. 2:11-cr-00368-VEH-HGD,

Minute Entry of Nov. 27, 2012). The Court determined that petitioner’s offense level

was 23 and his criminal history category was VI, yielding a range of imprisonment

of 92 to 115 months. (Doc. 29-1, United States v. McKinney, No. 2:11-cr-00368-

VEH-HGD, Statement of Reasons). On July 17, 2013, petitioner was sentenced to

serve 75 months and 17 days of incarceration, followed by 36 months of supervised

release. (Doc. 29, United States v. McKinney, No. 2:11-cr-00368-VEH-HGD,

Judgment). Petitioner did not file a direct appeal. 

ANALYSIS

Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United

States District Courts allows a court to summarily dismiss a § 2255 case “[i]f it

plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior

proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief.” 

In Johnson, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that imposing an

increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act

(ACCA) violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. Under the sentencing

provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) and (e)(1), if a defendant convicted for violating

18 U.S.C. § 922(g) has three or more earlier convictions for a “serious drug offense”

or a “violent felony,” the ACCA increases the prison term to a minimum of 15 years

Page 2 of 5

Case 2:16-cv-08047-VEH Document 2 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 5
and a maximumof life. The Supreme Court determined that the residual clause of the

ACCA, which provides that a felony that “involves conduct that presents a serious

potential risk of physical injury to another” should be treated as a “violent felony,”

violatesthe Constitution’s guarantee of due process as impermissiblyvague. Johnson

has been made retroactive to cases on collateral review, such as petitioner’s. Welch

v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 1265, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2016). 

Petitioner filed the instant § 2255 motion on May 15, 2016, which is within one year

of the decision in Johnson. Therefore, his motion is timely. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(f)(3).

The Court notes that 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) provides: “Whoever knowingly

violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as

provided in thistitle, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.” (emphasis added). 

Further, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) provides:

In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has

three previous convictions by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1)

of this title for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both,

committed on occasions different from one another, such person shall

be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than fifteen years, and,

notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not suspend

the sentence of, or grant a probationary sentence to, such person with

respect to the conviction under section 922(g). (emphasis added).

The Court has reviewed the record of the sentencing in petitioner’s case and

determined that, although he was sentenced based on a criminal history category of

Page 3 of 5

Case 2:16-cv-08047-VEH Document 2 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 5
VI, his sentence was not enhanced based on any factor made unconstitutional under

Johnson. In other words, although his sentencing range increased due to the fact that

he had felony convictions, the increase had nothing to do with whether they were

“violent” felonies implicating Johnson. In fact, had petitioner been sentenced to an

enhanced sentence under the ACCA, his mandatory minimum sentence would have

been 15 years (180 months). He was sentenced to 75 months, which is less than the

unenhanced maximum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) of ten years (120 months). 

Therefore, it is clear from the language of 18 U.S.C. § 924, the face of the record of

petitioner’s sentencing, and the actual sentence imposed, that petitioner was not

improperly sentenced in anymanner prohibited by Johnson. Accordingly, the Motion

to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence is due to be denied.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, the Court has

evaluated the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate

of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an

appeal is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall”

either issue a COA or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has

made a substantialshowing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Thisshowing can

Page 4 of 5

Case 2:16-cv-08047-VEH Document 2 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 5
be established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or for

that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner”

or that the issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04, 146 L.Ed.2d 542

(2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394-95

& n.4, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983)). For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if

reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right and whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. Id. 

The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate its resolution of the

claims presented in this § 2255 motion. For the reasons stated in this Memorandum

Opinion, the Court DECLINES to issue a COA with respect to any claims. Finally,

because Petitioner is not entitled to a COA, he is not entitled to appeal in forma

pauperis.

A separate order in conformitywith this MemorandumOpinion will be entered

contemporaneously herewith. 

DONE this 27th day of May, 2016.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5

Case 2:16-cv-08047-VEH Document 2 Filed 05/27/16 Page 5 of 5