Wilkes v. United States of America

Filing 22

ORDER terminating 20 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; denying 21 Amended Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 2/3/2017. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

JOSHUA MICHAEL WILKES
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 8:16-cv-1729-T-24TGW
8:11-cr-309-T-24TGW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
/

ORDER
Petitioner Joshua Michael Wilkes, represented by counsel, filed an Application for
Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. 21). Upon consideration of Petitioner’s Motion to
Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as well as Petitioner’s underlying criminal case,
Petitioner’s Application is denied because Petitioner has not made a showing of the denial
of a constitutional right under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Petitioner seeks to extend the holding in Johnson v. United States,135 S. Ct. 2551
(2015), to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) on collateral review. Johnson affords Petitioner no
collateral relief with regard to his § 924(c) conviction because Johnson did not address
the statute under which Petitioner was convicted. The Supreme Court has never held that
any part of § 924(c) is unconstitutionally vague. Nor has the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals extended Johnson’s vagueness determination to § 924(c). However, even if

reasonable jurists could find it debatable under Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478
(2000), as to whether Johnson extends to the residual clause under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c),
Petitioner’s convictions for a Hobbs Act robbery and armed carjacking qualify as crimes
of violence under § 924(c)’s force clause. See In re Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir.
2016); In re Smith 829 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2016).
ACCORDINGLY, for the reasons expressed, Petitioner’s Application for
Certificate of Appealability is denied.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on February 3, 2017.

Copies to: Counsel of Record

-2-