Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170515_0001470.ENC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-07-21 22:48:06
Document Index: 128341851

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 841', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 924', '§ 4']

JEROME RICO EVANS, Petitioner,
This matter is before the court on petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (DE 78), which challenges petitioner's career offender sentencing enhancement in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The issues raised are ripe for ruling.[1] For the reasons that follow, the court denies petitioner's motion to vacate.
On May 10, 2010, pursuant to a written plea agreement, petitioner pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a quantity of heroin and a quantity of cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On December 8, 2010, petitioner was sentenced to 170 months' imprisonment. Petitioner appealed his judgment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and dismissed the appeal in part.
Petitioner filed his first motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on February 7, 2012. The motion was denied. On June 27, 2016, petitioner filed the instant § 2255 motion, arguing that in light of Johnson, he no longer qualifies as a career offender. On August 9, 2016, this case was stayed pending the Supreme Court's final decision in Beckles v. United States, 15-8544. On April 7, 2017, the stay was lifted, and petitioner was given thirty days to show cause why his § 2255 motion should not be dismissed in light of Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017). Petitioner failed to respond.
Prior to Johnson, an offense was deemed a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act's (“ACCA”) so-called “residual clause” if it was punishable by greater than one year's imprisonment and “involve[d] conduct that present[ed] a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). In Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause of the ACCA as unconstitutionally vague. 135 S.Ct. at 2563.
In this case, petitioner relies on Johnson's reasoning to challenge his designation as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 on the basis that Johnson invalidated the residual clause. The Supreme Court recently held, however, that “the Guidelines are not amenable to a vagueness challenge.” Beckles, 137 S.Ct. at 894. Thus, petitioner's status as a career offender is not subject to constitutional challenge.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A certificate of appealability may issue only upon a &ldquo;substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.&rdquo; 28 U.S.C. &sect; 2253(c)(2). The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate whether the issues presented should have been decided differently or that they are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). After reviewing the claims ...