USA v. George Darden
Per Curiam OPINION filed : We vacate the judgment and remand for reconsideration in light of Johnson v. United States. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Circuit Judge; Bernice Bouie Donald, Circuit Judge and Jack Zouhary, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0487n.06
Case No. 14-5537
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Jul 06, 2015
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
BEFORE: SUTTON and DONALD, Circuit Judges; ZOUHARY, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. George Darden received a career offender enhancement under United
States Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1. At issue is whether one of Darden’s previous convictions
qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2). See Appellee’s Br.
7. In Johnson v. United States, No. 13-7120 (U.S. June 26, 2015) (slip op. at 10, 15), the
Supreme Court held that the identically worded residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal
Act is void for vagueness. Compare U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) with 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
We have previously 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.
The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by
Case No. 14-5537, United States v. Darden
1999), and Darden deserves the same relief as Johnson: the vacating of his sentence. Indeed,
after Johnson, the Supreme Court vacated the sentences of offenders who were sentenced under
the Guidelines’ residual clause. United States v. Maldonado, 581 F. App’x 19, 22–23 (2d Cir.
2014), vacated, 576 U.S. __ (2015); Beckles v. United States, 579 F. App’x 833, 833–34 (11th
Cir. 2014), vacated, 576 U.S. __ (2015). The same relief is appropriate here.
For these reasons, we vacate the judgment and remand for reconsideration in light of
Johnson v. United States.
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?