Ademolla Wahhed Adeyemi v. United States of America

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., that the motion to vacate Petitioner's sentence under 18 USC 924(c) be, and hereby is, Denied. It is Further Ordered that Petitioners request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 USC 2253(c)(2) be, and hereby is, Denied. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California
Western Division

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

ADEMOLLA WAHHED ADEYEMI,
JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

CV 16-04472 TJH
CR 07-00110 GAF

Order
JS-6

18
19

The Court has considered Petitioner Ademolla Wahhed Adeyemi, Jr.’s motion

20

to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or, in the

21

alternative, request for a certificate of appealability as to his claim pursuant to 28

22

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), together with the moving and opposing papers.

23
24

Petitioner challenges his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which is predicated
on armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d).

25

Section 924(c) defines “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A) [the “Force

26

Clause”] and § 924(c)(3)(B) [the “Residual Clause”]. This Court held that the Residual

27

Clause is unconstitutionally vague, and that certain convictions — convictions that,

28

under the categorical approach, see Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), fall
Order – Page 1 of 3

1

outside the Force Clause because the statutory elements of the conviction include

2

conduct falling outside the Force Clause’s definition of a “crime of violence” — must

3

be vacated. See Juan Becerra-Perez v. United States, No. 2:16-cv-07046-TJH (C.D.

4

Cal. Feb. 15, 2017). The Force Clause defines a “crime of violence” as a felony that

5

“has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against

6

the person or property of another[.]” § 924(c)(3)(A).

7

Sections 2113 (a) and (d) are crimes of violence under the Force Clause defined

8

in § 924(c)(3)(A). United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000).

9

Since Wright, the Ninth Circuit has reaffirmed that armed bank robbery qualifies as a

10

crime of violence under the Force Clause. United States v. Pritchard, No. 15-50278,

11

2017 WL 2219005, at *1 (9th Cir. May 18, 2017). Subsection (a) provides for a felony

12

conviction for bank robberies and incidental crimes committed “by force and violence,

13

or by intimidation.” 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has

14

defined intimidation under § 2113 to mean “wilfully to take, or attempt to take, in such

15

a way that would put an ordinary, reasonable person in fear of bodily harm,” which

16

comports with the requirement of a “threatened use of physical force” contained in the

17

Force Clause. United States v. Selfa, 918 F.2d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 1990).

18

Similarly, subsection (d) includes “putting in jeopardy the life of any person by

19

the use of a dangerous weapon or device.” 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). As such, even the

20

most innocent conduct penalized under this section would qualify as a crime of

21

violence. See United States v. Watson, No. 14-00751 01 DKW, 2016 WL 866298, at

22

*7 (D. Haw. Mar. 2, 2016). Therefore, both subsections (a) and (d) fall within the

23

definition of a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). Watson, 2016 WL

24

866298, at *7. This conclusion is, further, supported by decisions in this Circuit

25

reaching the same result. See, e.g., McFarland v. United States, CV16-7166-JFW,

26

2017 WL 810267, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2017); United States v. Salinas, No. 1:08

27

CR 0338 LJO SKO, 2017 WL 2671059, at *7 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2017).

28

A district court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has
Order – Page 2 of 3

1

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2

2253(c)(2). Such a showing requires the petitioner to “demonstrate that the issues are

3

debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different

4

manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

5

further.” Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (alterations in

6

original, emphasis omitted). Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial

7

of a constitutional right under any of the above bases.

8
9

Accordingly,

10
11
12

It is Ordered that the motion to vacate Petitioner’s sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) be, and hereby is, Denied.

13
14
15

It is Further Ordered that Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) be, and hereby is, Denied.

16
17

Date: July 27, 2017

18

___________________________________

19

Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order – Page 3 of 3