Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170814_0002676.WNC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-23 18:39:45
Document Index: 454180391

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 2']

CHAVIS O'NAIR POOLE, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Criminal No. 1:12-cr-00054-MR-DLH-1
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. 1] and the Government's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7].
On December 18, 2012, Petitioner pled guilty in this Court to possession of a firearm by a felon. [Crim. Case No. 1:12-cr-00054-MR-DLH-1 (“CR”), Doc. 16: Acceptance and Entry of Guilty Plea]. The presentence report (“PSR”) noted that Petitioner had one prior conviction that triggered an enhancement to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4): a 2009 North Carolina conviction for common law robbery. [CR Doc. 22 at ¶¶ 13, 26: PSR]. Based on the § 2K2.1 enhancement, Petitioner faced a Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months. [Id. at ¶ 60]. On November 26, 2013, this Court imposed a sentence of 60 months. [CR Doc. 25: Judgment]. Petitioner did not appeal.
On June 18, 2016, Petitioner filed the pending motion to vacate, through the Federal Defender as counsel, raising a Johnson claim. In the motion to vacate, Petitioner argues that, under Johnson, his prior conviction for common law robbery no longer qualifies as a predicate for a base-offense level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a). [Doc. 1 at 3].
On September 2, 2016, the Court placed Petitioner's motion in abeyance pending the outcome of Beckles v. United States, Supreme Court No. 15-8455, in which petitioner argued that his career-offender sentence was erroneously enhanced by an unconstitutionally vague residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. [Doc. 4]. On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court held in Beckles that “the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges.” 137 S.Ct. 886, 890 (2017). On May 8, 2017, the Government filed the pending motion to dismiss, arguing that Petitioner's Johnson challenge to his enhanced sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a) has no validity in light of Beckles. [Doc. 7]. On June 23, 2017, the Court granted the Federal Defender's motion to withdraw from representation of Petitioner. [Doc. 9]. In the Court's order, the Court gave Petitioner twenty days to file a pro se response to the Government's motion to dismiss. [Id.]. Petitioner has not responded and the time to do so has passed.
As noted, Petitioner challenges his enhanced sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a), in light of Johnson. In Beckles, however, the Supreme Court held that “the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges.” 137 S.Ct. 886, 890 (2017). Thus, the holding in Beckles has foreclosed Petitioner's Johnson claim, and the Court will therefore deny and dismiss the petition and grant the Government's motion to dismiss.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Government&#39;s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7] is GRANTED, and Petitioner's Section 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct ...