Whitlow v. USA
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM DECISION, ORDER, AND DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 1 is DENIED, and that this action is DISMISSED. IT I S FURTHER ORDERED, that the Court will not issue a Certificate of Appealability. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JABIN ALLEN WHITLOW
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 1:16-CV-556-BLW
Crim.Case No. 1:02-CR-79-BLW
Crim. Case No. 1:02-CR-185-BLW
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION,
ORDER, AND DENIAL OF
CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
INTRODUCTION
Whitlow moves to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. The Government has filed a response, arguing that Whitlow’s motion must be
dismissed as a matter of law. The matter is fully briefed by both sides and at issue.
Because the Court finds that the governing issue is a matter of law, no evidentiary
hearing is necessary. For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that Johnson does
not apply and that Whitlow’s motion must be denied.
LITIGATION BACKGROUND
Whitlow was originally charged in two separate cases for drug and firearm
offenses. His cases were consolidated for trial, and a jury convicted him on all counts
against him. In 2003, Whitlow was sentenced to 444 months of imprisonment after the
Court deemed him to be a Career Offender under the Guidelines. He appealed and won a
reversal of his conspiracy conviction. He was resentenced in 2006 to 300 months of
Memorandum Decision & Order & Denial of Certificate of Appealability – page 1
imprisonment, again based on a finding that he was a Career Offender. That resentencing
was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in 2009. See U.S. v. Whitlow, 308 F. App’x 236 (9th
Cir. 2009).
Whitlow’s first motion under § 2255 was denied. See Whitlow v. U.S., 2012 WL
4758073 (D. Idaho, Oct. 5, 2012). Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v.
U.S., 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), the Ninth Circuit granted Whitlow’s request to file a second
motion under § 2255 to argue issues raised by Johnson. See Whitlow v. U.S., No. 1671585 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2016).
ANALYSIS
Whitlow argues that Johnson renders unconstitutional the residual clause of the
Career Offender provisions of the Guidelines, resulting in a substantial reduction in his
sentence. Whitlow was deemed a Career Offender due to two prior convictions, one for
second degree assault in Oregon and another for conspiracy to manufacture a controlled
substance. See Guideline § 4B1.1. Whitlow argues that his Oregon conviction cannot
qualify as a “crime of violence” under Johnson, and that he was erroneously sentenced as
a Career Offender.
In Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause of the Armed
Career Criminal Act (ACCA) as unconstitutionally vague. Whitlow points out that the
residual clause in the Career Offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines is identical
to that struck down in Johnson, and that it follows from Johnson that the Guideline
provision must fall as well.
Memorandum Decision & Order & Denial of Certificate of Appealability – page 2
However, that argument was rejected in Beckles v. U.S., 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017).
There the Supreme Court distinguished the ACCA from the Guidelines, holding that the
Guidelines are advisory and do not fix the permissible range of sentences but merely
guide the exercise of a court’s discretion in choosing an appropriate sentence within the
statutory range. Accordingly, Beckles held that the Career Offender provisions of the
Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause.
Whitlow was originally sentenced in 2003, at a time when the Guidelines were
mandatory. But after a successful appeal, he was resentenced in 2006, a year after the
Supreme Court declared the Guidelines as advisory only. See U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005). Because Whitlow’s final sentence was issued under the advisory Guidelines,
Beckles governs the result in this case, and Whitlow’s motion must be denied.
As an independent reason for denying Whitlow’s motion, the Court notes that he
was not sentenced under the residual clause – he was sentenced under the elements
clause. Even so, Whitlow responds, his sentence under the elements clause is void
because the Oregon statute for second degree assault is overbroad and unconstitutional.
But years have passed between the time Whitlow’s resentencing was affirmed by the
Ninth Circuit in 2009, and his filing of this second habeas petition on 2016. The one-year
limitations period imposed by § 2255(f) starts running from the latest of the following
four events: (1) the date on which the judgment became 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 US is removed; (3) the date on which the right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the
Memorandum Decision & Order & Denial of Certificate of Appealability – page 3
Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) the
date on which the facts supporting the claim presented could have been discovered
through due diligence.
Whitlow did not need to await the discovery of any facts to challenge his sentence
under the elements clause, and there has been no newly recognized right granted, or
impediment removed, that would result in the limitations period starting sometime after
Whitlow’s resentencing became final when the Ninth Circuit rejected his appeal in 2009.
By the time Whitlow filed this second habeas petition in 2016, the one-year limitation
period had long-since expired. Accordingly, under § 2255(f), Whitlow’s motion is timebarred.
Certificate of Appealability
The Court must resolve doubts about the propriety of a certificate of appealability
(COA) in movant’s favor, see Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000)
(en banc), but no such doubt exists here. In light of Beckles, Whitlow’s motion has no
chance of success on appeal. See McPeters v U.S., 2017 WL 2115815 (C.D.Cal. May 12,
2017) (denying COA in an order relying on Beckles to reject a Johnson-based vagueness
challenge to the Career Offender Guidelines); US v. Haines, 2017 WL 1425833 (D. Nev.
Apr. 18, 2017) (same). The Court will accordingly deny a certificate of appealability in
this case. The Court will prepare a separate Judgment as required by Rule 58(a).
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
Memorandum Decision & Order & Denial of Certificate of Appealability – page 4
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (docket no. 1) is DENIED, and that this
action is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Court will not issue a Certificate of
Appealability. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DATED: February 19, 2018
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U.S. District Court Judge
Memorandum Decision & Order & Denial of Certificate of Appealability – page 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?