Goodale v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 7/27/2016. (PSM)
2016 Jul-27 PM 02:53
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES OF
Memorandum of Opinion
This is a motion to vacate, set aside, or amend a sentence under the authority
of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), filed pro se
by Plaintiff, John Goodale (“Goodale”), on June 23, 2016. Goodale also requests
the appointment of counsel. Goodale pled guilty to a three-count indictment in this
Court and now challenges his sentence. For the reasons stated below, Goodale’s
motion is due to be dismissed.
On December 20, 2013, an Alabama State Trooper observed Goodale
exceeding the speed limit in a truck with improper tags. (Cr. Doc. 13). The trooper
pulled behind Goodale and activated his lights, at which point Goodale accelerated
to a speed of 107 miles per hour. (Cr. Doc. 13). After a chase of several miles,
Page 1 of 5
Goodale exited the interstate, where the chase continued for several more miles.
(Cr. Doc. 13). Following a foot pursuit, the trooper apprehended Goodale. Other
officers on the scene searched Goodale’s vehicle and found six firearms and 53.5
grams of methamphetamine. (Cr. Doc. 13).
In May of 2015, the Grand Jury returned a three-count indictment charging
Goodale with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), and possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Cr. Doc. 13). Goodale pled
guilty to Counts 1, 2, and 3 on June 25, 2015. (Cr. Doc. 13). He was sentenced by
this Court to a term of imprisonment for 181 months and lifetime supervised
release. (Cr. Doc. 13). Judgment was entered on February 12, 2016. Goodale did
A. Timeliness and Non-Successive Nature of Goodale’s § 2255 Motion
Because Goodale filed his § 2255 motion within one year of the date that the
judgment of his conviction became final, his motion is timely. See 28 U.S.C. §
2255(f)(1). Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that Goodale has
Page 2 of 5
previously filed a § 2255 motion. Thus, the current motion is not “successive”
within the meaning of § 2255(h).
B. Goodale’s Claim under Johnson
Goodale argues that in light of Johnson v. United States, he is entitled to be
resentenced because the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act
found to be unconstitutional in Johnson is directly analogous to the definition of
“crime of violence” used in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)
provides for specific punishment enhancements for a defendant who “uses or
carries” a gun “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking
crime.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). “Crime of violence” is defined as “an offense
that is a felony and (A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use
of physical force against the person or property of another, or (B) that by its nature,
involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of
another may be used in the court of committing the offense.” 18 U.S.C. §
In this case, however, Goodale was convicted and sentenced under the
“drug trafficking crime” portion of that law. A “drug trafficking crime” is defined
as “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act, the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act, or chapter 705 of title 46.” 18 U.S.C. §
Page 3 of 5
924(D)(2). Count Two of the indictment, as well as the facts presented in the
Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) do not assert a crime of violence as the
trigger for Goodale’s § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction, but rather the drug trafficking
crime charged in Count One of the indictment. Possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine is a drug trafficking crime as defined in the statute. Because the
predicate offense was a drug trafficking crime, not a crime of violence, the
reasoning put forth by Goodale under Johnson is not applicable.
For the reasons stated above, Goodale’s motion is due to be DISMISSED.
An appropriate order will be entered.
This Court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28. U.S.C.
2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a “petitioner must demonstrate that
reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that
“the issues presented were adequate and deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations
omitted). This Court finds that Goodale’s claims do not satisfy either standard.
Page 4 of 5
DONE and ORDERED on July 27, 2016.
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
Page 5 of 5
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?