Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190925_0002317.ENC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 20:53:07
Document Index: 613752727

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

LIONEL BERNARD NEWMAN, JR., Petitioner,
This cause comes before the Court on petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [DE 224]. The stay previously entered in this matter has been lifted, and the Court has permitted the parties to file supplemental briefing. For the reasons that follow, petitioner's § 2255 motion is DENIED.
Petitioner, Newman, is currently serving a sentence of 180 months' imprisonment after pleading guilty to counts one and three of an eight-count indictment charging Newman and others with robbery and firearm offenses. Newman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rob businesses engaged in interstate commerce (count one), 18U.S.C. § 1951(b), and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and aiding and abetting (count three), 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 2. [DE 201-1].
Newman filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 arguing that his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct-2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act's definition of a crime of violence is unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 2563; 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2).
Upon a motion by the government, the case was stayed on August 2, 2016, to await decisions by the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Walker, 934 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2019) and United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2019). Although Simms was decided on January 24, 2019, the mandate in Simms was stayed to await the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Davis and the Fourth Circuit's mandate in Simms, this Court sua sponte lifted the stay in this matter and ordered additional briefing. In this posture, the § 2255 motion is ripe for adjudication.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), a defendant shall be subject to a consecutive sentence if he "during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime ... for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm...." 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The predicate offense for Newman's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in count three is his interference with commerce by robbery (Hobbs Act robbery) charge in count two. [DE 1].
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)-(B). Although, like the ACCA's residual clause, the residual clause of § 924(c)(3) is now invalid, Davis, 139 S.Ct. at 2336, Hobbs Act robbery remains a crime of violence under the force clause of § 924(c)(3)(A). United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019). That the Hobbs Act robbery charge in count two supporting Newman's § 924(c) conviction was dismissed as part of Newman's plea agreement is of no import. See United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d 415, 425 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v. Link, 214 F.Supp. 3d 506, 518 (E.D. Va. 2016). Accordingly, Newman's § 924(c) conviction stands as he has a proper crime of violence predicate to support the conviction.