Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170920_0003081.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-07-16 01:09:57
Document Index: 345702864

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 1951', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 924', '§ 924']

JEREMY LOCKETT, Defendant/Petitioner.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CORRECT SENTENCE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [107]
Before the Court is Petitioner Jeremy Lockett's motion to correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Dkt. no. 107, "Petitioner's Motion.") The Court has jurisdiction over this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, based on Petitioner's Rule 11 plea agreement entered in this Court on July 14, 2015. (Dkt. no. 39.) This Court is familiar with the previous proceedings, has reviewed the pleadings and supporting documentation, and Petitioner has suggested no evidence to support his motion. The motion, files and records of the case conclusively show that the Petitioner is entitled to no relief and the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing on this matter is not necessary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). The Court has reviewed these pleadings and denies Petitioner's motion with prejudice.
On or about December 29, 2014, Jeremy Lockett and two other individuals entered a Dollar General store located in Dearborn, Michigan. Defendant Lockett knew his companion was armed with a pistol when they entered the business and that the gun would be used to rob the store. The trio shopped for items and placed them on the counter for the cashier. Lockett's companion then brandished a firearm and announced a robbery. The cashier opened the cash register and backed away. Lockett and his companions took money and store property before fleeing the location. Dollar General is a national retailer which engages in business that affects interstate commerce.
(Rule 11 Plea Agreement 3, dkt. 39.)
On March 17, 2015, Petitioner was charged in a First Superseding Indictment with Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), interference with commerce by robbery (Count 7), and with using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 8). (First Superseding Indictment, dkt. 23.) On July 14, 2015, Petitioner pleaded guilty to these counts, pursuant to a Rule 11 plea agreement. (Rule 11 Plea Agreement, dkt. no. 39.)
On October 26, 2015, the Court sentenced Petitioner to a total of 96 months: twelve months as to count 7, and 84 months as to count 8 to run consecutive to count 7. (Judgment, dkt. 80.) On July 15, 2016, Petitioner filed his motion to correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Pet'r's Mot., dkt. 107.)
28 U.S.C. § 2255 allows a prisoner in custody under sentence of a federal court to "move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence" when "the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
III. Analysis: Johnson Does Not Apply
Petitioner moves to vacate his sentence in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Johnson held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), was unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 2557. Petitioner was charged with and sentenced pursuant to section 924(c) for Hobbs Act Robbery; he argues that, following Johnson, his “conviction for Interference with Commerce by Robbery no longer qualifies as a ‘crime of violence.'”[1] (Pet'r's Mot., dkt. 107.)
For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), a “crime of violence” is defined as
[A]n offense that is a felony and--