USA v. Desean Harbin
Per Curiam OPINION filed : The judgment of the district court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Johnson. Decision not for publication. Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Deborah L. Cook, and Helene N. White, Circuit Judges. [14-3956, 14-3964]
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0509n.06
Case Nos. 14-3956/3964
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DESEAN R. HARBIN,
Jul 20, 2015
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
Before: SILER, COOK, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. At Desean Harbin’s sentencing, the district court applied the career
offender enhancement, USSG § 4B1.1. The issue before this court is whether Harbin’s prior
burglary conviction constitutes a “crime of violence” under the residual clause of the career
offender enhancement, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2). In Johnson v. United States, No. 13-7120, 2015
WL 2473450, at *4–5 (U.S. June 26, 2015), the Supreme Court held that the identically worded
residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is void for vagueness. Compare
USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), with 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). We have interpreted both residual
clauses identically. See United States v. Ford, 560 F.3d 420, 421 (6th Cir. 2009); United States
v. Houston, 187 F.3d 593, 594–95 (6th Cir. 1999). Following Johnson, the Supreme Court has
vacated the sentences of offenders who were sentenced under the residual clause of the
Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Maldonado, 581 F. App’x 19, 22–23 (2d Cir. 2014),
Case Nos. 14-3956/3964, United States v. Harbin
vacated, No. 14-7445, 2015 WL 2473524, at *1 (U.S. June 30, 2015); Beckles v. United States,
579 F. App’x 833, 833–34 (11th Cir. 2014), vacated, No. 14-7390, 2015 WL 2473527, at *1
(U.S. June 30, 2015); see also Wynn v. United States, No 14-9634, 2015 WL 2095652, at *1
(U.S. June 30, 2015) (vacating a Sixth Circuit order, which denied habeas relief based on a
predicate offense qualifying under the residual clause of the career offender enhancement).
Accordingly, Harbin is entitled to the same relief as offenders sentenced under the residual
clause of the ACCA. See United States v. Darden, No. 14-5537 (6th Cir. Jul. 6, 2015) (per
For these reasons, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for
reconsideration in light of Johnson.
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?