Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170411_0001310.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-09-22 06:11:04
Document Index: 274830058

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

WALTER SMITH, Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTIONS TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE
This matter came before the court on petitioner Walter Smith's June 20 and July 1, 2016 Motions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. The government filed a response December 9, 2016; and Petitioner filed a reply March 3, 2017.
Petitioner Walter Smith pleaded guilty to both charges in his indictment: Hobbs Act robbery (Count I), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and use of a firearm during and in relation to the robbery (Count II), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Smith filed these two motions following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague. Smith therefore argues that “his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(a)(ii) offense should be vacated and/or overturned . . . .”
To prevail on a § 2255 motion, "a petitioner must demonstrate the existence of an error of constitutional magnitude which has a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the guilty plea or the jury's verdict." Humphress v. United States, 398 F.3d 855, 858 (6th Cir. 2005). A movant can prevail on a § 2255 motion alleging non-constitutional error only by establishing a "fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice, or an error so egregious that it amounts to a violation of due process." Watson v. United States, 165 F.3d 486, 488 (6th Cir. 1999).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b), evidentiary hearings are not required if "the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that prisoner is entitled to no relief." Because the files and records of this case conclusively show that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary; and the court will rule on this matter on the briefs submitted.
For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the term “crime of violence” is defined as a felony that:
(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person or property of another, or
Subsection (A), called the “elements clause” or the “force clause, ” looks to the elements of the offense and whether the elements involve the use of force. See, e.g., United States v. Fuertes, 805 F.3d 485, 498 (4th Cir. 2015). Subsection (B) is called the “residual clause” and looks to the risk of force posed by the offense.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In Johnson, the Supreme Court invalidated the residual clause in the ACCA, but it left intact that statute&#39;s elements clause and enumerated-offense clauses. Johnson, 135 S.Ct. At 2563. Therefore, even if the residual clause in &sect; 924(c) is affected by Johnson, petitioner Smith is not entitled to relief if his ...