Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180216_0000081.CIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-06-20 04:23:58
Document Index: 663816361

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2255', '§ 2255', '§2255', '§ 841', '§ 2255', '§ 1', '§ 3582', '§ 5', '§ 1', '§ 3582']

NOLAN RAMON NELSON, Petitioner,
On March 28, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted Petitioner Nolan Ramon Nelson's application to file a successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. §2255, thereby authorizing this Court to consider his claim and the Government's defense.
Counsel was appointed to represent the Petitioner. A supplemental motion with exhibits was filed and the Government has filed its response.
For the reasons that follow, the Petitioner's motion under § 2255 is without merit.
The Petitioner was sentenced as a career offender. In his motion, he sought to challenge his sentence under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), wherein the United States Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is unconstitutionally vague. The Seventh Circuit later held that because Johnson announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law, it has retroactive application. See Price v. United States, 795 F.3d 731, 734 (7th Cir. 2015).
The Government alleges that the Petitioner's claim is foreclosed by the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017). Even if the Petitioner's claim was not foreclosed by Beckles, the Government asserts he waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence. The Government notes that, in dismissing the Petitioner's original §2255 motion, this Court previously determined that the waiver was enforceable. Additionally, the Government alleges the Petitioner's challenge to the advisory guidelines calculation is improper on collateral review.
At sentencing, as a career offender with two prior felony drug convictions, the Petitioner faced a statutorily mandated sentence of life imprisonment pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 851. Accordingly, life imprisonment became the Petitioner's guideline range.
The Court allowed a motion to depart downward from the applicable guideline range. On August 22, 2005, the Petitioner was sentenced to 262 months imprisonment.
The Petitioner's sentence was affirmed on direct appeal in United States v. Nelson, 491 F.3d 344 (7th Cir. 2007). His subsequent motion under § 2255 was dismissed by this Court.
In November of 2014, the United States Sentencing Commission amended U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, the policy statement which governs motions to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Section 1B1.10 now provides:
If the case involves a statutorily required minimum sentence and the Court had the authority to impose a sentence below the statutorily required minimum sentence pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant's substantial assistance to authorities, then for purposes of this policy statement the amended guideline range shall be determined without regard to the operation of § 5G1.1 . . . .
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). Accordingly, a determination that the Petitioner is no longer a career offender would permit him to seek sentencing relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), based on retroactive amendments to the sentencing guidelines that have the effect ...