US v. Lavonte Hallman


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00097-MOC-DCK-1,3:15-cv-00468-MOC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000127928]. Mailed to: Lavonte Hallman. [16-6306]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6306 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/31/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6306 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAVONTE LAMONT HALLMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00097-MOC-DCK-1; 3:15-cv00468-MOC) Submitted: July 27, 2017 Decided: July 31, 2017 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lavonte Lamont Hallman, Appellant Pro Se. John George Guise, COPELAND RICHARDS, Davidson, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6306 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/31/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Lavonte Lamont Hallman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Hallman challenges his career offender designation based on Johnson v. United States, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which declared the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act unconstitutionally vague. * Hallman’s argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent decision that the Sentencing Guidelines, including the career offender residual clause, “are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause.” Beckles v. United States, __ U.S.__, 137 S. Ct. 886, 892 (2017). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Before this court, Hallman clarifies that he believes he is entitled to relief under our decisions in United States v. Gardner, 823 F.3d 793 (4th Cir. 2016), and United States v. Billups, 652 F. App’x 157 (4th Cir. 2016). These cases do not apply to Hallman as they address armed career criminal designations under the Armed Career Criminal Act, not career offender designations. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?