Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20160909_0000977.EVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-08-19 03:29:20
Document Index: 612108584

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

Defendant, by counsel, has filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence imposed on him a decade ago on the ground that the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), operates to invalidate his conviction for one count of using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). At issue on the government's motion to dismiss is whether defendant's § 2255 motion is untimely pursuant to the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Also at issue, assuming defendant's § 2255 motion is timely, is whether Johnson operates to invalidate defendant's § 924(c) conviction. Because the matter has been fully briefed and the facts and law are fully set forth in the existing record, neither oral argument nor an evidentiary hearing would aid the decisional process.[2] Accordingly, the matter is now ripe for disposition.
(iii) use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and 0) (Count 3); and
Pursuant to § 924(c), a defendant who "during and in relation to any crime of violence ...uses or carries a firearm ... shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence ... be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years." 18 U.S.C.§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). In order to prove a violation of § 924(c), the government must establish: (1) that the defendant used a firearm; and (2) that he did so during and in relation to a crime of violence. United States v. Strayhorn, 743 F.3d 917, 922 (4th Cir. 2014). Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3), a "crime of violence" is any felony:
The government's motion to dismiss raises a threshold issue as to whether defendant's § 2255 motion is timely. Because defendant filed his § 2255 motion approximately a decade after his sentences of conviction and judgment became final, his § 2255 motion would typically be barred by the one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). Yet, defendant contends that his § 2255 motion is timely because pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), the limitations period runs from June 26, 2015, the date Johnson was decided.[3] In this regard, § 2255(f)(3) provides that a one-year limitations period runs from "the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review." Id.[4]
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Supreme Court has made clear that when interpreting a statute, "the starting point... is the language itself." Consumer Prod. Safety Comm &#39;n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.,447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980). In this regard, it is axiomatic that i4[i]f the statutory language is plain, " a court "must enforce it according to its terms." King v. Burwell,135 S.Ct. 2480, 2489 (2015). At the same time, the Supreme Court has recently explained that statutory interpretation properly proceeds "with reference to the statutory context, &#39;structure, history, and purpose, &#39; " as well as "common sense." Abramski v. United States,134 S.Ct. 2259, 2267 (2014) (quoting Maracich v. Spears,133 S.Ct. 2191, 2209 (2013)). Thus, "although the analysis properly focuses on the text, the analysis ...