Source: http://md.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20181101_0001698.DMD.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-24 15:46:01
Document Index: 119006046

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§2241', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

The Petitioner Sean Sterling (''Petitioner" or "Sterling") brings his second Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, pursuant to an Order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granting him authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015).[1] (ECF No. 443.) Also pending before this Court are numerous other Motions filed by the Petitioner, including Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order denying his prior Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 405), Motion for Relief from judgement Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and (6) (ECF No. 415), and Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order denying his Motion to Vacate Conviction under 28 U.S.C. §2241 (ECF No. 44l).[2]
On December 3, 2008, after an eight-day jury trial, Sterling was found guilty on both counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924®. (Verdict Form 1, ECF No. 238.) Subsequently, on February 19, 2009, this Court sentenced him to 264 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. (Judgment 2, ECF No. 264.) Petitioner, at times represented by counsel, filed numerous motions post-trial attacking both his conviction and sentence. As many of Sterling's now-pending Motions seek relief from judgment or reconsideration of this Court's prior opinions on those motions, the motions and this Court's rulings are described below.
Finally, after the United States Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) on June 26, 2015, and struck down the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) as unconstitutionally vague, Sterling filed a motion to file a second § 2255 motion, pursuant to Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and 2255 Cases. The Fourth Circuit granted the motion on the ground that the new rule of constitutional law announced by the Supreme Court might perhaps apply to Sterling's case. (ECF No. 442.) Subsequently, the Petitioner filed his pro se second Motion to Vacate Under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and two Motions to Amend. (ECF Nos. 443, 468, 477.) The Office of the Federal Public Defender did not join in Petitioner's Motion or otherwise file a Johnson motion on his behalf.