Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20171020_0002377.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-21 00:50:57
Document Index: 341733112

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 841', '§ 922', '§ 4', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 4', '§ 4']

Jevon Antwain Jackson, Petitioner,
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court denies the motion for the reasons herein.[1]
On June 14, 2016, Petitioner, represented by attorney Mark C. McLawhorn, pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to (1) possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C); and (2) being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). See ECF Nos. 2, 35, 39, & 40. The presentence investigation report (“PSR”) prepared by the U.S. Probation Office determined Petitioner was a career offender under United States Sentencing Guideline (“U.S.S.G.”) § 4B1.1[2] based on his two prior South Carolina convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine (“PWID cocaine”) and possession with intent to distribute marijuana (“PWID marijuana”). PSR [ECF No. 53] at ¶¶ 25-26, 33, 60. Petitioner's resulting advisory guideline range was 151 to 188 months' imprisonment. Id. at ¶ 81. Petitioner filed a motion seeking a downward variance from the advisory guideline range. See ECF No. 48.
On October 18, 2016, the Court granted Petitioner's motion for a downward variance and sentenced him to a total term of 137 months' imprisonment, [3] followed by a term of supervised release of three years. See ECF Nos. 51 & 54. Judgment was entered on October 19, 2016; and an amended judgment (correcting a clerical mistake) was entered on October 31, 2016. See ECF Nos. 54 & 58. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.
On May 5, 2017, [4] Petitioner filed the instant pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See ECF Nos. 60 & 64. On June 30, 2017, plea counsel (Mr. McLawhorn) filed an affidavit addressing his representation of Petitioner. See ECF No. 70. On July 20, 2017, the Government filed a Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment. See ECF No. 72. On August 25, 2017, [5] Petitioner filed a response in opposition to the Government's motion. See ECF No. 78.
In his § 2255 motion, Petitioner states two related grounds for relief concerning his career offender designation. See ECF Nos. 60 & 64. For analytical purposes, the Court first addresses Ground Two and then Ground One.
I. Ground Two
Petitioner alleges his prior convictions for PWID cocaine and PWID marijuana are not controlled substance offenses within the meaning of U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2. See ECF No. 64 at p. 5; ECF No. 60 at pp. 6-10. Specifically, he argues that under Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), [6] a modified categorical approach would have determined that the “distribute” element in his predicate convictions are broader than the elements of a controlled substance offense defined in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Petitioner is not entitled to relief on Ground Two. A petitioner generally may not use 28 U.S.C. &sect; 2255 to challenge the calculation of his advisory guideline range. See United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931, 935-36 (4th Cir. 2015); United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 283-84 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Mikalajunas, 186 F.3d 490, 495-96 (4th Cir. 1999). &ldquo;The language of &sect; 2255 makes clear that not every alleged sentencing error can be corrected on collateral review. The Supreme Court has instructed that only those errors presenting a &lsquo;fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice&#39; are cognizable.&rdquo; Foote, 784 F.3d at 932 (quoting Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346 (1974)). In Foote, the Fourth Circuit held a &sect; 2255 motion that was based on a subsequently-nullified career offender designation was not a fundamental defect, as required to challenge a sentence on a motion to vacate. Id. at 940. Under Foote, Petitioner's claim-that he was improperly ...