Source: http://ia.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170915_0000607.NIA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-01-21 23:48:41
Document Index: 43060880

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

MELVIN JORDAN, III, Movant,
This matter appears before the court on the movant's second motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (civil docket no. 1), which he obtained authorization to file. The movant filed such motion on September 29, 2015. In his second § 2255 motion, the movant claims that he is entitled to relief under the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. United States, U.S., 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The government disputes that the movant is entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
On March 12, 2008, the movant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(e)(1). The court ordered a pre-sentence report to be prepared. The parties entered into a post-plea agreement (criminal docket nos. 46-5 & 53-3). The parties filed sentencing memoranda (criminal docket nos. 46 & 47), which included relevant state court documents concerning the movant's prior convictions. On September 3, 2008, the court calculated a sentencing guidelines range of 188 to 235 months imprisonment based on a total adjusted offense level of 31 and a criminal history category VI and sentenced the movant to a term of 169 months imprisonment, which was the high end of the new range after departing downward from the high end of the applicable sentencing guidelines range. Subsequently, the court relied on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) to reduce the movant's sentence to 109 months imprisonment.[1]
When enacting 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Congress “intended to afford federal prisoners a remedy identical in scope to federal habeas corpus.” Sun Bear, 644 F.3d at 704 (quoting Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343 (1974)) (internal quotation mark omitted). Although it appears to be broad, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does not provide a remedy for “all claimed errors in conviction and sentencing.” Id. (quoting United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979)). Rather, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is intended to redress constitutional and jurisdictional errors and, apart from those errors, only “fundamental defect[s] which inherently [result] in a complete miscarriage of justice” and “omission[s] inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.” Hill, 368 U.S. at 428; see also Sun Bear, 644 F.3d at 704 (clarifying that the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is severely limited and quoting Hill, 368 U.S. at 428); United States v. Apfel, 97 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised for the first time on direct appeal and, if uncorrected, would result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” (citing Poor Thunder v. United States, 810 F.2d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 1987))). A collateral challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not interchangeable or substitutable for a direct appeal. See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 165 (1982) (making clear that a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 will not be allowed to do service for an appeal). Consequently, “an error that may justify reversal on direct appeal will not necessarily support a collateral attack on a final judgment.” Id. (quoting Addonizio, 442 U.S. at 184).
The parties dispute whether the movant has enough prior qualifying convictions to be subject to an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The movant argues that his three prior Iowa burglary convictions do not qualify as predicate felonies and, therefore, his sentence exceeds the non-ACCA statutory maximum. The government argues that relief is not available under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because the movant failed to establish that the court relied on the residual clause and it does not matter that, if sentenced today, the movant would no longer be subject to the enhanced ACCA statutory range of punishment because Descamps and Mathis do not provide an independent constitutional basis for attacking the movant's sentence.
In Johnson, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the residual clause; the Supreme Court held that “the indeterminacy of the wide-ranging inquiry required by the residual clause both denies fair notice to the defendant and invites arbitrary enforcement by judges.” U.S. at, 135 S.Ct. at 2557. Shortly after invalidating the residual clause, the Supreme Court concluded in Welch v. United States that Johnson announced a substantive rule that applied retroactively on collateral review. U.S.,, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 1265 (2016). Hence, under Johnson and Welch, a prior conviction may not be used as a predicate ACCA offense if it falls under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)'s invalidated residual clause.
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the ACCA's other two clauses, namely, the elements clause and the enumerated-crimes clause, remain viable. See Johnson, U.S. at, 135 S.Ct. at 2563 (“Today's decision does not call into question application of the [ACCA] to the four enumerated offenses, or the remainder of the [ACCA's] definition of a violent felony.”); accord United States v. Sykes, 844 F.3d 712, 716 (8th Cir. 2016). Thus, application of Johnson and Welch negates the use of a felony unless it qualifies as an ACCA predicate without relying on the residual clause. “[E]ven if a defendant's prior conviction was counted under the residual clause, courts can now consider whether that conviction counted under another clause of the ACCA.” In re Moore, 830 F.3d 1268, 1271 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Welch, U.S. at, 136 S.Ct. at 1268). The movant must prove that he was sentenced using the residual clause and that the use of that clause made a difference in the sentence. See id. at 1273; see also Stanley v. United States, 827 F.3d 562, 566 (7th Cir. 2016) (stating that a “proponent of collateral review” must “produce evidence demonstrating entitlement to relief”); In re Cooks, No. 16-14444-J, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23767, *8 n.2, (11th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016) (emphasizing that burden is on movant); Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348, 1355 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing Kress v. United States, 411 F.2d 16, 20-21 (8th Cir. 1969), for the proposition that the burden of proof is on petitioner in § 2255 proceeding); Day v. United States, 428 F.2d 1193, 1196 (8th Cir. 1970) (providing that petitioner bears burden of proof on each ground asserted in § 2255 motion); Taylor v. United States, 229 F.2d 826, 832 (8th Cir. 1956) (“Because the statutory proceeding is a collateral attack upon the judgment of conviction, the burden is on the [movant] to establish a basis for relief under some one or more of the grounds set forth in [§ 2255].”). If the court cannot tell whether, at sentencing, the movant's prior convictions qualified pursuant to the residual clause, which would render his sentence subject to being challenged under Johnson, or whether they qualified pursuant to the elements clause or the enumerated-crimes clause, which would not render his sentence subject to being challenged under Johnson, the court must deny relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See In re Moore, 830 F.3d at 1273; accord In re Hires, 825 F.3d 1297, 1303 (11th Cir. 2016). So, if, at the time of sentencing, the movant's burglary convictions qualified as a violent felonies under the enumerated-crimes clause (even if it also qualified under the residual clause), the resulting sentence is not subject to attack. See In re Hires, 825 F.3d at 1303; accord United States v. Gabrio, No.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;01-CR-165, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122242, at *9 (D. Minn. Aug. 2, 2017); Traxler v. United States, No. 16-CV-747, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117119 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 31, 2016); Ziglar v. United States, No. 16-CV-463, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105955 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 11, 2016). It makes no difference whether the movant&#39;s burglary convictions would count as a predicate if the court sentenced the movant today. See In re Hires, 825 F.3d at 1303 (explaining that &ldquo;Johnson does not serve as a portal to assert a Descamps claim&rdquo;); see also United States v. Taylor, 672 F. App&#39;x 860, 861-64 (10th Cir. 2016) (determining that Johnson did not impact sentence imposed because prior burglary convictions qualified under enumerated-crimes clause and Mathis did not announce a new rule that is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review).[2]But see United Statesv. Winston, 850 F.3d 677, 682 (4th Cir. 2017) (holding that, “when an inmate's sentence may have been predicated on ...