Christopher Cummings v. USA


Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Joel M. Flaum, Circuit Judge; Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Judge and Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge. [6827490-1] [6827490] [16-1636]

Download PDF
Case: 16-1636 Document: 30 Filed: 03/21/2017 Pages: 2 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued February 16, 2017 Decided March 21, 2017 Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge No. 16-1636 CHRISTOPHER R. CUMMINGS, Petitioner-Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. No. 15-CV-1219-JPS J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. ORDER In 2006, Cummings pled guilty to distributing cocaine. The district court sentenced him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. To be sentenced as a career offender, § 4B1.1(a) requires the defendant to have “at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” Cummings previously had been convicted in Wisconsin for possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and for discharging a firearm from a vehicle. He argued that discharging a firearm from a vehicle was not a crime of violence and thus he could not be sentenced as a career offender. The district court held, however, that discharging a firearm was a crime of violence under the sentencing guideline’s residual clause. Case: 16-1636 No. 16-1636 Document: 30 Filed: 03/21/2017 Pages: 2 Page 2 In 2015, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague. Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). After Johnson, Cummings filed a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that because the language in the sentencing guideline’s residual clause is identical to the language in the ACCA’s residual clause, the sentencing guideline’s residual clause is also unconstitutionally vague. We had held that the sentencing guideline’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague after Johnson in United States v. Hurlburt, 835 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2016). But this week, the Supreme Court held that the sentencing guidelines are not subject to due-process vagueness challenges. Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. ___, No. 15-8544, slip op. at 5 (Mar. 6, 2017). Cummings’s argument is thus without merit. AFFIRMED.

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?