Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190925_0000883.EVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-07 16:22:48
Document Index: 117238915

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

William Langley, Jr., a federal inmate proceeding with counsel, filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion ("§ 2255 Motion, " ECF No. 141) arguing that his convictions and sentences are invalid under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The Government initially filed a Motion to Dismiss the § 2255 Motion contending that it is barred by the relevant statute of limitations. (ECF No. 147-2.) Thereafter, the Court ordered further briefing. In its most recent Supplemental Memorandum, the Government now argues that Langley's claim lacks merit. (ECF No. 165.) For the reasons set out below, the § 2255 Motion will be granted and Count Two and its corresponding sentence will be vacated.
A grand jury returned a three-count Indictment charging Langley with conspiracy to commit robbery affecting commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) ("conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery") (Count One); use and discharge firearm during a crime of violence causing death of another, to wit: "Overt Act 3 of the Conspiracy alleged in Count One, " in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), 924 (j), and 2 (Count Two); and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence as alleged in Count One, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and 2 (Count Three). (Sec. Superseding Indictment 1-7, ECF No. 39.)
In Johnson, the Supreme Court held "that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act [("ACCA")] violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process, " 135 S.Ct. at 2563, because the Residual Clause of the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e) (2) (B) (ii), defined "violent felony" in an unconstitutionally vague manner for the reason that the Residual Clause encompassed "conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another, " which defied clear definition. Id. at 2557-58 (citation omitted). Subsequently, in Welch v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016), the Supreme Court held that "Johnson announced a substantive rule [of law] that has retroactive effect in cases on collateral review." Id. at 1268.