Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190417_0001000.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-04-09 19:09:23
Document Index: 628522933

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

FindACase™ | Crisp v. United States
Crisp v. United States
Michael Scott Crisp, PETITIONER
Terry L. Wooten Terry L. Wooten Senior United States District Judge
Petitioner Michael Scott Crisp pled guilty to using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 4). His § 924(c) conviction was related to a Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Count 1). The Court sentenced him as a career offender to 204 months incarceration. ECF No. 103.
In February 2016, Petitioner filed a pro se § 2255 petition, then a supplemental petition. ECF Nos. 142, 149. His petition was not entirely clear, but the Court construed it to be alleging that he should be resentenced without the application of the career offender enhancement in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). In light of the Court's standing order appointing the Federal Public Defender to represent defendants who may be entitled to relief under Johnson, the Court appointed the Federal Public Defender to represent him. ECF No. 155. However, no one from the Federal Public Defender's office noticed an appearance on Petitioner's behalf.
After the Supreme Court issued its decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017), the Court denied the petition. ECF No. 158.
After the Court denied the petition, the oversight was realized and an assistant federal public defender noticed his appearance. ECF No. 161. Petitioner, through counsel, filed a consent Rule 60(b)(6) motion, along with an accompanying memorandum of law, seeking to vacate the order denying his petition and clarify his petition to also raise the issue of whether Hobbs Act robbery is not a valid § 924(c) predicate. ECF Nos. 162, 163. In the motion, counsel says that “due to the sheer volume of Johnson petitions pending, [counsel] did not realize that a notice of appearance had not been filed, ” and that “counsel did not receive notice of the dismissal.” ECF No. 162 at 1. For the reasons set forth in the motion and without objection from the Government, the Court concludes that it would be appropriate to vacate the prior order denying his § 2255 petition and consider it anew. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to vacate, ECF No. 162, is GRANTED. The Court's prior order denying his petition and the corresponding judgment, ECF Nos. 158, 159, are VACATED.
Having waded through the procedural morass, the Court now turns to the merits of the petition. Considering Petitioner's original pro se filings together with the assistant federal public defender's later filings, he makes two arguments: (1) that he is no longer a career offender; and (2) that Hobbs Act robbery is not a valid § 924(c) predicate conviction.
Because the Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge and because Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A), Petitioner's petition for relief pursuant to § 2255, ECF No. 142, is DENIED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.[3]