Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20161003_0001073.EVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-12-18 09:06:15
Document Index: 796377255

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Civil Action No. 2:16cv323
Roderick Allen Cotton, Jr, ("Petitioner") has submitted a Motion pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255 to Vacate Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody ('':§ 2255 Motion"). Having thoroughly reviewed the Parties' filings in this case, the Court finds this matter is ripe for judicial determination. For the reasons set forth below. Petitioner's § 2255 Motion is DENIED.
Petitioner pled guilty to counts one, two, and twelve of the indictment. ECF No. 29. Count one charged Petitioner with interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Id. Counts two and twelve charged Petitioner with brandishing firearms during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Id.
On June 23, 2016, Petitioner, through counsel, filed the instant Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("§ 2255"). ECF No. 32. Petitioner's § 2255 Motion also requested that it be held in abeyance, pending a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding whether "Hobbs Act robbery" under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) is a crime of violence. Id. On July 13, 2016, the United States Attorney's Office ("Respondent") filed a Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's § 2255 Motion. ECF No. 35.
In his § 2255 Motion, Petitioner argues that his convictions on counts two and twelve, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), should be vacated in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Specifically, Petitioner argues that the statutory language held unconstitutionally vague in Johnson is "materially indistinguishable" from the statutory language under which he was convicted on counts two and twelve, i.e., the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) ("§ 924(c)(3)(B)"). Therefore, according to Petitioner, Johnson also invalidates § 924(c)(3)(B), requiring that his convictions on counts two and twelve be vacated. Mot. Vacate 1-2, ECF No. 32.
In response, Respondent argues that Petitioner is not entitled to file a motion under § 2255 because the Supreme Court has not yet recognized § 924(c)(3)(B) as unconstitutionally vague. According to Respondent, the Johnson holding does not invalidate § 924(c)(3)(B), leaving Petitioner without a cognizable right to assert on collateral review. Mot. Dismiss 1, ECF No. 35.