Source: http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170103_0000001.ETN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-12-16 03:19:07
Document Index: 567307907

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 924', '§ 846', '§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 801', '§ 951', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 2253']

JUVENTINO R. CASTRO, Petitioner,
Before the Court is Petitioner's pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. 100]. He bases his request for collateral relief on Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), in which the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), was unconstitutionally vague [Id.]. The United States responded in opposition [Doc. 102]. Petitioner did not reply and the time for doing so has now passed. E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1, 7.2. For the reasons below, the petition for collateral relief [Doc. 100] will be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Petitioner pled guilty to, and was subsequently convicted of, conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); possessing firearms as an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A); and possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) [Docs. 50, 89]. In 2008, this Court sentenced Petitioner to an aggregate sentence of 180 months' imprisonment-consecutive statutorily-mandated minimums of 120 months for the drug offense and 60 months for the § 924(c) offense [Doc. 78]. Petitioner appealed, but the Sixth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. In October of 2016, Petitioner filed the instant collateral challenge based on the Johnson decision [Doc. 100].[1]
First, binding Sixth Circuit precedent holds that while Johnson invalidated the residual provision of the ACCA and identically worded clause in Section 4B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, § 924(c)(3)(B)'s definition of crime of violence remains unaffected.[2] See United States v. Pawlak, 822 F.3d 902, 911 (6th Cir. 2016) (concluding “rationale of Johnson applies equally” to the Guidelines' definition of crime of violence); United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340, 376-79 (6th Cir. 2016) (recognizing at least four “significant differences” between the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B) and the ACCA's residual clause and noting “the argument that Johnson effectively invalidated [the former] is . . . without merit”).
Second, even if Johnson's reasoning could be used to invalidate § 924(c)(3)(B)'s residual clause, Petitioner's conviction under § 924(c)(1)(A) did not rely on that provision. To the contrary, Petitioner was convicted of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, not crime of violence [Docs. 78, 89]. The statute defines “drug trafficking crime” as “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801, et seq., [or] the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 951, et seq.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2). Johnson has no bearing whatsoever on the scope of that definition. Accord United States v. Jenkins, 613 F. App'x 754, 755 (10th Cir. 2015) (deeming Johnson irrelevant to drug offenses). As such, Petitioner has failed identify a viable basis for vacating his § 924(c) conviction.
For the reasons discussed, Petitioner's § 2255 motion [Doc. 100] will be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court will CERTIFY any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. Therefore, this Court will DENY Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Petitioner having failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.