Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170106_0000027.WVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-02-20 17:55:40
Document Index: 662520170

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 922', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§\n2255', '§\n2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 2255']

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.LAVAR VINCENT BROWN Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.ALPHONSO BUSTER GILBERT Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.ERIC VINCENT MACK, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.RANDY WAYNE SHELTON Defendant. Civil Action Nos. 7:16CV80888, 7:16CV81125, 7:16CV81054, 7:16CV80927
Vincent Brown, Alphonso Buster Gilbert, Eric Vincent Mack,
and Randy Wayne Shelton, (referred to collectively as
"petitioners"), all federal inmates, moved to
vacate, set aside, or correct their sentences under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 following the Supreme Court's decision in
Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The
government has responded in all of the cases with motions to
dismiss. Petitioners seek relief from their sentences,
arguing that they were improperly sentenced as armed career
criminals because they do not have three prior convictions
for violent felonies within the meaning of the Armed Career
Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) ("ACCA"). The
court heard oral argument on December 6, 2016. Upon review of
the entire records in all four cases, the court will grant
petitioners' § 2255 motions, and deny the
government's motions to dismiss. Because these cases all
deal with the same legal issues, the court will address them
in one opinion. Each petitioner's order accompanying this
opinion will specify his particular circumstances.
each pleaded guilty or were found guilty of one count of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The presentence investigation
reports ("PSR"), prepared in anticipation of
sentencing, recommended that petitioners all receive an
enhanced sentence because they qualified as armed career
criminals under the ACCA. The PSRs relied on at least one
Virginia burglary conviction to support petitioners'
armed career criminal status, without which petitioners would
not qualify as armed career criminals. Petitioners all
received enhanced sentences under the ACCA for being armed
state a viable claim for relief under § 2255, a
petitioner must prove: (1) that his sentence was
"imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States;" (2) that "the court was without
jurisdiction to impose such a sentence;" or (3) 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). Petitioners bear the burden of proving
grounds for a collateral attack by a preponderance of the
evidence. Miller v. United States. 261 F.2d 546, 547
(4th Cir. 1958).
petition under § 2255 must adhere to strict statute of
limitations requirements. Generally, a petitioner must file a
§ 2255 motion within one year from the date that his
judgment of conviction became final. 28 U.S.C. §
2255(f)(1). However, the statute recognizes an additional
one-year limitations period in certain limited circumstances,
including when the Supreme Court recognizes a new right. Such
a motion is timely as long as it is filed one year from
"the date on which the right asserted was initially
applicable on collateral review." Id. at §
2255(f)(3).
filed their § 2255 motions more than one year from the
date of their final judgments. Accordingly, their motions are
untimely under § 2255(f)(1). Nonetheless, they argue
that their petitions are timely under § 2255(f)(3)
because they all filed their motions within one year of the
Supreme Court's decision in Johnson, 135 S.Ct.
2551, which issued on June 26, 2015. For the following
reasons, the court concludes that their petitions are timely.
law prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms. 18
U.S.C. § 922(g). Defendants who violate this law are
subject to a term of up to ten years' imprisonment. 18
U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). However, when defendants convicted
of a § 922(g) charge have three or more prior
convictions for "serious drug offenses" or
"violent felonies, " they qualify as armed career
criminals under the ACCA. Armed career criminals face an
increased punishment: a statutory mandatory minimum of
fifteen years' imprisonment and a maximum of life. 18
U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
Johnson, the Supreme Court invalidated part of the
definition of "violent felony" under the ACCA. 135
S.Ct. at 2563. The ACCA defines a "violent felony"
[A]ny crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year . .. that -
explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a
18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). In Johnson, the
Supreme Court reviewed subsection (ii) of the violent felony
definition. The first part of this subsection lists specific
types of crimes that qualify as violent felonies: burglary,
arson, extortion and crimes involving explosives. This list
of crimes, referred to as the "enumerated crimes clause,
" was not invalidated by Johnson. 135 S.Ct. at
2563 (noting that other than the residual clause, the
Court's holding "d[id] not call into question ...
the remainder of the [ACCA's] definition of a violent
felony"). However, Johnson struck down, as
unconstitutionally vague, the end of subsection (ii) -
"or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious
potential risk of physical injury to another" - known as
the "residual clause." 135 S.Ct. at 2563.
Therefore, following Johnson, prior convictions that
qualified as "violent felonies" under the residual
clause can no longer serve as ACCA predicates.
Supreme Court&#39;s decision in Johnson announced a
new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to
cases on collateral review. Welch v. United States,
136 S.Ct. 1257, 1268 (2016). However, petitioners can rely on
the extended limitations period in § 2255(f)(3) only if
at least one of their prior convictions was ...