Jackson v. United States of America
Filing
8
ORDER denying 1 Motion to vacate/set aside/correct sentence (2255) and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and is directed to close this case.The Clerk of the Court is directed to file a copy of this Order in criminal case number 6:09-cr-223-Orl-31GJK and terminate the motion to vacate pending in that case (Criminal Case Doc. 337).This Court should grant an application for certificate of appealability only if the Petitioner makes &q uot;a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c). Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED in this case. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 9/5/2017. (TKW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ERIC JACKSON,
Petitioner,
v.
CASE NO. 6:16-cv-1322-Orl-31GJK
(6:09-cr-223-Orl-31GJK)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
/
ORDER
This case involves a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct an illegal sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 filed by Eric Jackson (Doc. 1). The Government filed a
response to the § 2255 motion in compliance with this Court’s instructions and with the
Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts (Doc. 4).
Petitioner filed a reply (Doc. 5).
Petitioner alleges one claim for relief. However, as discussed hereinafter, the Court
finds that the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence is untimely and must be
denied.
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner was charged by indictment with two counts of aiding and abetting in a
bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (counts three and five) and two counts of
knowingly using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and (c)(3) (counts four and six) (Criminal Case No. 6:09-cr-
223-Orl-31GJK, Doc. 27). 1 Petitioner pled guilty to the counts as charged in the
indictment (Criminal Case Doc. 136). Magistrate Judge Kelly entered a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the guilty plea be accepted (Criminal Case Doc.
149). The Court accepted the guilty plea and adjudicated Petitioner guilty (Criminal Case
Doc. 156). On May 11, 2010, the Court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent twelve-month
terms of imprisonment for counts three and five, to a consecutive twelve-month term of
imprisonment for count four, and to a consecutive three hundred-month term of
imprisonment for count six (Criminal Case Doc. Nos. 215 and 253). Judgment was entered
on May 12, 2010 (Criminal Case Doc. 226). Petitioner did not appeal. Petitioner filed his
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence on June 23, 2016.2
II.
TIMELINESS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255, the time for filing a motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct a sentence is restricted, as follows:
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this
section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of -(1)
the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2)
the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by
governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making
a motion by such governmental action;
1Criminal
Case No. 6:09-cr-223-Orl-31GJK will be referred to as “Criminal Case.”
A § 2255 motion is deemed filed the date it was delivered to prison authorities
for mailing. See Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001).
2
2
(3)
the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the
Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the
Supreme Court and made retroactively application to cases on
collateral review; or
(4)
the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented
could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. ' 2255(f).
In the present case, Petitioner’s conviction and sentence became final on May 26,
2010, or the date Petitioner’s time for seeking a direct appeal expired. See Murphy v. United
States, 634 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2011); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (providing a
criminal defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within fourteen
days after the entry of judgment or order appealed). Petitioner had one year, or through
May 26, 2011, to file a § 2255 motion. Petitioner’s motion, filed on June 23, 2016, is
untimely.
Petitioner contends his § 2255 motion is timely filed pursuant to § 2255(f)(3) in
light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (holding that the residual clause of
the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) is unconstitutionally vague) and Welch v.
United States, 136 S. Ct 1257 (2016) (determining Johnson is retroactive to cases on collateral
review). Essentially, Petitioner seeks to extend Johnson to § 924(c)(3)(B) (defining a crime
of violence as a felony that by its nature, “involves a substantial risk of physical force . . .
.”). However, the Eleventh Circuit has held that “Johnson does not apply to, or invalidate,
the “risk-of-force” clause in § 924(c)(3)(B).” Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257, 1266
3
(11th Cir. 2017). Neither the Supreme Court of the United States nor the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals has held that Johnson applies to § 924(c)(3)(B). See In re Pinder, 824 F.3d
977, 978 (11th Cir. 2016). Consequently, the instant action is untimely.
Nevertheless, even assuming Johnson applied retroactively to convictions under §
924(c), a finding not made by this Court, Petitioner would not benefit from extending
Johnson. The Eleventh Circuit has held that a conviction for aiding and abetting a Hobbs
Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the use of the force clause in §
924(c)(3)(A). See In re Colon, 826 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2016). Additionally, the
Eleventh Circuit has determined that bank robbery qualifies as a crime of violence. See In
re Sams, 830 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2016). Therefore, it logically follows that aiding and
abetting a bank robbery would also qualify as a crime of violence. Consequently,
Petitioner’s convictions and sentences for the violations of § 924(c)(1)(A) were properly
premised on his convictions for aiding and abetting two bank robberies.
In sum, Johnson is not retroactive to § 924(c) convictions. Moreover, Petitioner’s
convictions for violations of § 924(c)(1)(A) are based on his convictions for aiding and
abetting two bank robberies, which are crimes of violence. Therefore, Johnson would not
benefit Petitioner, and Petitioner is not entitled to relief under Johnson.
Any of Petitioner’s allegations that attempt to excuse his failure to file the instant
motion within the one-year limitations period and that are not specifically addressed
herein have been found to be without merit.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
4
1.
The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct an illegal sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ' 2255 (Doc. 1) filed by Eric L. Jackson is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED
with prejudice.
2.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and is directed to
close this case.
3.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to file a copy of this Order in criminal
case number 6:09-cr-223-Orl-31GJK and terminate the motion to vacate pending in that
case (Criminal Case Doc. 337).
4.
This Court should grant an application for certificate of appealability only
if the Petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. ' 2253(c). Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.3 Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED in this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida this 5th day of September, 2017.
Copies to:
OrlP-3 9/5
3 Pursuant
to the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States
District Court, A[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when
it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.@ Rules Governing ' 2255 Proceedings, Rule
11, 28 U.S.C. foll. ' 2255.
5
Eric L. Jackson
Counsel of Record
6
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?