Court Opinion

ID: 9941105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 21:01:07.61848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:13.465570
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                ______________

                                       No. 18-3746
                                     ______________

                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                             v.

                                 KEITH N. WILLIAMS,

                                                       Appellant

                                   ________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                               (D.C. No.2-14-cr-00217-002
                        District Judge: Hon. Michael M. Baylson
                                   ________________

                      Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                   on June 13, 2023

              Before: PORTER, FREEMAN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges

                            (Opinion filed: February 15, 2024)

                                       __________
                                        OPINION*
                                       __________

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
FREEMAN, Circuit Judge.

       Keith Williams appeals the denial of his motion to correct his sentence pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the following reasons, we will vacate the District Court’s order

and remand for resentencing.

                                                  I

       Williams was convicted of one count of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1951(a); one count of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a

crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); and one count of possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At his sentencing in

2017, the District Court applied sentencing enhancements based on Williams’ prior

Pennsylvania convictions for robbery of a motor vehicle, in violation of 18 Pa. Cons.

Stat. § 3702, and aggravated assault, in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(1).

Williams did not appeal from his judgment of sentence.

       In 2018, Williams filed a § 2255 motion. He claimed that his sentencing

enhancements are invalid based on Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), and

that sentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Johnson challenge. The

District Court denied the § 2255 motion. Williams timely appealed, and we granted a

certificate of appealability as to both claims.

                                                  2
                                            II1

       In 2018, we held that, in light of Johnson, a conviction for Pennsylvania

aggravated assault in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(1) does not qualify for

certain sentencing enhancements because it does not “categorically require[ ] ‘as an

element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of

another.’” United States v. Mayo, 901 F.3d 218, 225 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(e)(2)(B)(i)). We reaffirmed Mayo’s holding in United States v. Harris, 68 F.4th

140, 141-42 (3d Cir. 2023), and we denied a petition to rehear Harris en banc, United

States v. Harris, 88 F.4th 458, 459 (3d Cir. 2023).

       Under Mayo and Harris, Williams’ aggravated assault convictions cannot serve as

a basis for the enhancements that were applied at his sentencing. The government

acknowledges that there was no alternative basis for the enhancements. Therefore,

Williams’ sentence is unlawful.

       Williams’ sentencing took place two years after Johnson was decided. His

counsel performed deficiently by failing to raise a Johnson challenge at sentencing. See

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). That failure prejudiced Williams, so

he is entitled to be resentenced. See id.

                                       *     *        *

       For the reasons stated above, we will vacate the order denying Williams’ motion

to correct his sentence and remand this case to the District Court for resentencing.

1
  The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253.
                                             3