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)

Download PDF
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-

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?