Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190923_0002295.ENC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 10:36:40
Document Index: 76538417

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1951', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924']

WAYNE ANDERSON, Petitioner,
Petitioner, Anderson, was sentenced to 270 months' imprisonment after being found guilty of interference with commerce by robbery (Hobbs Act robbery) and aiding and abetting (count one), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2, and using a firearm during a crime of violence and aiding and abetting (count two), 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 2. [DE 1].
Anderson filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction on count two and his designation as a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Upon a motion by the government, this case was stayed on September 1, 2016, to await decisions by the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Walker, 934 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2019), and United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2019). Although Simms was decided on January 24, 2019, the mandate in Simms was stayed to await the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Davis and the Fourth Circuit's mandate in Simms, this Court sua sponte lifted the stay in this matter and ordered additional briefing. In this posture, the § 2255 motion is ripe for adjudication.
In his § 2255 motion, Anderson argues that his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction is invalid as it is based on predicate conviction that is no longer a crime of violence. Anderson further contends that his Guidelines sentencing range was improperly enhanced under the career offender Guideline. Both arguments rely on the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act's definition of a crime of violence is unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 2563; 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2). Four years later, in Davis, the Supreme Court invalidated the definition of a crime of violence in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)'s residual clause. 139 S.Ct. at 2336; see also Simms, 9l4F.3dat252.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), a defendant shall be subject to a consecutive sentence if he "during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime ... for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm ...." 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The predicate offense for Anderson's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is his Hobbs Act robbery charge in count one. [DEI].
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)-(B). Although the residual clause of § 924(c)(3) is now invalid, Hobbs Act robbery remains a crime of violence under the force clause of § 924(c)(3)(A). United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, Anderson's § 924(c) conviction stands.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Anderson&#39;s Johnson challenge to his career offender advisory Guidelines range is foreclosed by the Supreme Court&#39;s decision in Beckles v. United States, which held that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to ...