Source: https://casetext.com/case/silver-v-united-states-12
Timestamp: 2018-10-18 21:18:32
Document Index: 322946608

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2253']

Silver v. United States, NO: 5:04-CR-00062-BR | Casetext
NO: 5:04-CR-00062-BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 18, 2018)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISIONJan 18, 2018
NO: 5:04-CR-00062-BR NO: 5:16-CV-00269-BR
LEVERNE SILVER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
It is well established that a motion filed under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint, and that the legal sufficiency is determined by assessing whether the complaint contains sufficient facts, when accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." This plausibility standard requires only that the complaint's factual allegations "be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level."
Houck v. Substitute Tr. Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 473, 484 (4th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). This same standard applies equally to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenging a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Reckmeyer, 900 F.2d 257 (4th Cir.1990) (unpublished) ("We agree that a district court may properly consider a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to the legal sufficiency of a § 2255 petition." (footnote omitted)).
Petitioner asserts one claim for relief in his § 2255 motion. He contends that he is "actually innocent" of being a career offender and challenges his career offender designation based on the decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Before considering these arguments, it is important to understand the basis for petitioner's career offender status.
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) (2004). Pertinent here, a crime of violence under the career offender guideline's so-called "residual clause" is "any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that . . . otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." Id. § 4B1.2(a)(2). "'[C]ontrolled substance offense' means an offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance . . . ." Id. § 4B1.2(b).
In support of his argument that he is actually innocent of being a career offender, petitioner claims his consolidated "misdemeanor" assault convictions have been expunged and relies on those documents identified as Exhibit A filed in support of his motion. (DE # 1, at 15.) Exhibit A consists of: (1) what appears to be printouts of computerized information pertaining to petitioner's second-degree trespass, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault by pointing a gun convictions; (2) a judgment remitting the monetary balance due in those cases; and, (3) a 4 December 2015 affidavit of Donna Gail Richardson referring to petitioner's assault on a female case number and stating the affiant consents to petitioner's motion to set aside the guilty verdict and to the State's dismissal of the case. (Id. at 26-30.) None of these documents shows that any of petitioner's prior state convictions has been expunged, vacated, or disposed of.
Even assuming that petitioner might be factually innocent of the assault on a female conviction, cf. United States v. Maybeck, 23 F.3d 888, 892-94 (4th Cir. 1994) (applying actual innocence exception in § 2255 to noncapital sentencing proceeding where the defendant was innocent of one of the two convictions used to determine he was a career offender), his two other career offender predicate convictions (assault with a deadly weapon and sell or deliver cocaine) remain. As for those other convictions, the decision in Johnson does not offer petitioner assistance. In Johnson, the Court held that the residual clause in the violent felony definition of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Lee, 855 F.3d 244, 246 (4th Cir. 2017). However, "Johnson's vagueness holding does not apply to the residual clause in [the career offender guideline]." Id. at 247 (citing Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 892 (2017)). Johnson also has no bearing on petitioner's controlled substance conviction. See United States v. Outen, Cr. No. 3:09-826-CMC, 2017 WL 2277193, at *2 (D.S.C. May 25, 2017) (recognizing that Johnson does not "address predicate convictions based on drug offenses"). As such, petitioner is not entitled to relief on his habeas corpus claim.
The government's motion is ALLOWED, and the § 2255 motion is DISMISSED. The court finds that petitioner has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
This 18 January 2018.