Teron Harris v. USA

Filing

AMENDED OPINION filed: In its decision in Beckles, the Supreme Court made clear that the residual clause found in the prior version of USSG 4B1.2(a) is not subject to void-for-vagueness challenges in the same way as is the residual clause of the ACCA. Consequently, Harris cannot rely on the 2015 ruling in Johnson to extend the one-year period for filing his 2255 motion challenging his 60-month prison sentence. We thus conclude that Harris s 2255 motion was untimely and AFFIRM the district court s denial of that motion, decision not for publication. Martha Craig Daughtrey (authoring), Eric L. Clay, and Deborah L. Cook, Circuit Judges.

Download PDF

Case: 16-3332 Document: 21-1 Filed: 04/17/2017 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk Tel. (513) 564-7000 www.ca6.uscourts.gov Filed: April 17, 2017 Ms. Catherine Jean Adinaro Federal Public Defender's Office 1660 W. Second Street Suite 750 Cleveland, OH 44113 Mr. Daniel R. Hurley Office of the U.S. Attorney c/o FBI P.O. Box 7755 Ann Arbor, MI 48107 Re: Case No. 16-3332, Teron Harris v. USA Originating Case No. : 3:16-cv-00402 : 3:13-cr-00367-1 Dear Counsel: The Court issued the enclosed Amended Opinion today in this case. Sincerely yours, s/Renee M. Jefferies Case Manager Direct Dial No. 513-564-7021 cc: Ms. Sandy Opacich Enclosure Mandate to issue

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?