Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04599/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04599-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark David Branon
Petitioner
USA
Respondent

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark David Branon,

Movant,

v. 

United States of America,

Respondent.

No. CV 16-04599 PHX SRB (CDB)

No. CR 02-00750 PHX SRB

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON:

Before the Court is Movant Mark Branon’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 

Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, at ECF No. 7-3 and ECF No. 9-1. Branon, who is 

currently without counsel, asserts his conviction and sentence for possession or use of a 

firearm with a silencer in a crime of violence (Count 8), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(B)(ii), is unconstitutional in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 

(2015). Respondent allows that, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States 

v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), Branon’s conviction on Count 8 should be vacated and 

Branon should be resentenced.

On September 4, 2002, a second superseding indictment was filed 

charging Defendant with eleven felonies: one count of conspiracy to possess 

with the intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(A)(vii) and 846 (Count 1); three counts of establishment for storing a 

controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) (Counts 2, 3, and 

6); one count of conspiracy to import marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 952, 960(a)(1), (b)(1)(G), and 963 (Count 4); one count of continuing a 

criminal enterprise, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848 (Count 5); one count of 

Case 2:16-cv-04599-SRB Document 45 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

murder for hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (Count 7); one count of 

possession or use of a firearm in a crime of violence with a silencer, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) (Count 8); one count of possession 

or use of a firearm in a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (Count 9); one count of felon in possession of a firearm, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 10); and one count of possession 

of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(k) and 924(a)(1)(B) (Count 11). (CR-02-750-PHX-SRB, ECF 

No. 38.) Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted on counts 1-5, 8, 

10, and 11. (CR-02-750-PHX-SRB, ECF Nos. 100-110.)

On August 26, 2003, Defendant was sentenced to 360 months’ 

imprisonment on Counts 1, 4, and 5 (conspiracy to possess with the intent to 

distribute marijuana, conspiracy to import marijuana, and continuing a 

criminal enterprise), 240 months’ imprisonment on Count 2 & 3 (two counts 

of establishment for storing a controlled substance), 120 months’ 

imprisonment on Count 10 (felon in possession of a firearm), and 60 months’ 

imprisonment on Count 11 (possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial 

number), all to run concurrently; and 360 months’ imprisonment on Count 8 

(possession or use of a firearm in a crime of violence with a silencer, running 

consecutively to the other counts). (CR-02-750-PHX-SRB, ECF No. 140.) 

The court also ordered that upon release from imprisonment, Defendant shall 

be placed on supervised release for 10 years on Count 1, 5 years on Counts 4, 

5, and 8, and for 3 years on Counts 2, 3, 10, and 11, to run concurrently with 

one another. (CR-02-750-PHX-SRB, ECF No. 140.)

On August 22, 2005, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s 

convictions and granted a limited review under United States v. Ameline, 409 

F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2005). (CR-02-750-PHX-SRB, ECF No. 172.)

On August 3, 2006, Defendant was re-sentenced pursuant to the 

remand from the Ninth Circuit and received the same sentence that was 

imposed in 2003. . . .

On April 21, 2008, the Ninth Circuit granted the government’s motion 

for summary affirmance, and affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence 

on direct appeal. United States v. Branon, 474 F. App’x 587 (9th Cir. 2008).

On June 27, 2016, Defendant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

to vacate, set aside or correct sentence by a person in federal custody. (CR02-750-PHX-SRB, ECF No. 274.) On July 15, 2016, Defendant filed a 

motion for leave to file a second and successive motion 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

(ECF No. 7.) The Ninth Circuit granted his request. (ECF No. 7.) In his 

original and subsequent § 2255 motions, Defendant argues that his § 924(c) 

conviction is no longer valid following the Supreme Court’s decision in

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) because the residual clause 

of § 924(c) is unconstitutionally vague and cannot be used to support his 

Case 2:16-cv-04599-SRB Document 45 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

§ 924(c) conviction and sentence. (CR-02-750-PHX-SRB, ECF No. 274; 

ECF No. 7.)

(ECF No. 42 at 2-3).

On March 17, 2017, the Court ordered a response to Branon’s § 2255 motion. (ECF 

No. 9). The matter was stayed on June 13, 2017, pending the United States Supreme 

Court’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), and the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals’ decision in United States v. Begay, 934 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2019). (ECF 

No. 23). The Supreme Court issued its decision in Dimaya on April 17, 2018. See 138 S. 

Ct. 1204. On August 19, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Begay, reiterating 

the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019), that 

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. See 934 F.3d at 1038. On August 23, 

2019, Respondent was ordered to file a response to Branon’s § 2255 motion no later than 

October 17, 2019. (ECF No. 23).

The Government filed its Response to the § 2255 motion on October 17, 2019, 

allowing the Court should grant Branon’s motion and “vacate his § 924(c) conviction 

(Count 8), and resentence [him] on Counts 1, 5, 10, and 11, following an amended 

guidelines calculation.” (ECF No. 42 at 1). Respondent avers:

As explained below, because conspiracy can no longer be a crime of 

violence under § 924(c)(3)(B) post-Davis and cannot serve as a predicate 

offense for Defendant’s § 924(c) conviction, this Court should grant 

Defendant’s § 2255 motion, vacate his § 924(c) conviction, and resentence 

Defendant on Count 1 (conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 

marijuana), Count 2, and 3 (establishment for storing a controlled substance), 

Count 4 (conspiracy to import marijuana), Count 5 (conspiracy to import 

marijuana), Count 10 (felon in possession of a firearm), and Count 11

(possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number).

(ECF No. 42 at 4).

The United States Solicitor General has “conceded” that Davis announced a 

substantive rule of constitutional law applicable on collateral review. See Brief for the 

United States, United States v. Davis, 2019 WL 629976, at *52 (Feb. 12, 2019). The Circuit 

Courts of Appeal that have reached this issue have concluded Davis announced a 

Case 2:16-cv-04599-SRB Document 45 Filed 02/06/20 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

substantive rule of constitutional law retroactively applicable on collateral review. See

United States v. Reece, 938 F.3d 630, 635 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. Bowen, 936 

F.3d 1091, 1097 (10th Cir. 2019); In re Hammoud, 931 F.3d 1032, 1038 (11th Cir. 2019).

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Branon’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct 

sentence at ECF No. 7-3 and ECF No. 9-1, be granted. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court vacate Branon’s § 924(c) 

conviction (Count 8), and resentence Branon on Count 1, Counts 2 and 3, Count 5, 

Count 10, and Count 11; order a presentence report be prepared; and resentence Branon

accordingly.

This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s 

judgment. The parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to 

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the 

Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States 

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to 

any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s 

right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant 

to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

Dated this 6th day of February, 2020.

Case 2:16-cv-04599-SRB Document 45 Filed 02/06/20 Page 4 of 4