United States of America v. Jones
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 6/15/2018. (yap, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT D. JONES,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 16 C 6403
Judge Thomas M. Durkin
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Robert D. Jones filed this pro se petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
maintaining that his conviction for brandishing a firearm during a Hobbs Act
robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme
Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Jones argues
that, because his conviction is unconstitutional, he is entitled to relief from his
conviction and sentence pursuant to § 2255(a). For the following reasons, the Court
denies Jones’s petition (R. 1).
Background
On March 10, 2005, Jones pleaded guilty to two counts of Hobbs Act robbery
and one count of Hobbs Act conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. In addition,
Jones pleaded guilty to one count of brandishing a firearm during a Hobbs Act
robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Jones to
219 months of imprisonment, 84 of which were imposed for violating 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A). Jones did not appeal. Jones now moves to vacate his conviction and
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 with respect to the count under
§ 924(c)(1)(A).
Standard
Section 2255 allows “a prisoner under sentence of a court established by Act
of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was
imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . [to] move
the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.”
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). A criminal defendant is entitled to relief from his conviction
and sentence if “the court finds . . . that there has been a denial or infringement of
the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to
collateral attack.” Id. § 2255(b). Section 2255 relief is reserved for “extraordinary
situations, such as an error of constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude or where a
fundamental defect has occurred which results in a complete miscarriage of justice.”
Blake v. United States, 723 F.3d 870, 878-79 (7th Cir. 2013).
Analysis
Section 924(c)(1)(A) imposes criminal liability upon “any person who, during
and in relation to any crime of violence . . . uses or carries a firearm, or who, in
furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). A
“crime of violence” is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) as:
[A]n offense that is a felony and—
(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of
physical force against the person or property of another, or
(B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force
against the person or property of another may be used in the course of
committing the offense.
2
Jones argues that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson, 135 S. Ct.
2551, his execution of Hobbs Act robbery does not constitute a crime of violence, and
that he is therefore entitled to relief from his conviction and sentence under
§ 924(c)(1)(A).
In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), a
provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act, is unconstitutionally vague and
violates due process. 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2557. That holding applies retroactively to
cases on collateral review. Welch v. United States, 136, S. Ct. 1257, 1265 (2016). The
Seventh Circuit in United States v. Vivas-Ceja, 808 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2015), found
that the definition of “crime of violence” contained in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is
unconstitutionally vague based on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Johnson. Id. at
723. The Seventh Circuit subsequently found the language of § 924(c)(3)(B)
identical
to
the
language
of
§
16(b)
and
invalidated
§ 924(c)(3)(B)
as
unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d 959, 996 (7th Cir.
2016).
Jones asserts that the reasoning adopted in Vivas-Ceja and Cardena applies
equally to his conviction under § 924(c)(1)(A) for brandishing a firearm during a
Hobbs Act robbery. The problem with Jones’s argument is that the Seventh Circuit
has ruled (in a decision postdating Jones’s petition and the government’s response)
that Hobbs Act robbery remains a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A) postJohnson. United States v. Anglin, 846 F.3d 954, 965 (7th Cir. 2017), cert. granted,
judgment vacated on other ground, 138 S. Ct. 126 (2017) (“Hobbs Act robbery is a
3
‘crime of violence’ within the meaning of § 924(c)(3)(A). In so holding, we join the
unbroken consensus of other circuits to have resolved this question.”); Haynes v.
United States, 873 F.3d 954, 955 (7th Cir. 2017) (same). “[U]nder the Seventh
Circuit’s decision in Anglin, Hobbs Act robbery served as a valid predicate for
[Jones’s] conviction under § 924(c)(1)(A).” United States v. Pickett, 2017 WL
1196954, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2017), certificate of appealability denied, 2017 WL
5899317 (7th Cir. Sept. 21, 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1312 (2018). Jones
therefore is not entitled to relief from his conviction under § 924(c)(1)(A).
The Court declines to issue Jones a certificate of appealability (“COA”)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Habeas Corpus Rule 11(a) requires district
judges to decide whether to grant or deny a COA in the first instance.” Gonzalez v.
Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 144 n.5 (2012). To obtain a COA, a habeas petitioner must
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). This demonstration “includes showing that reasonable jurists could
debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Because the Court’s denial of
Jones’s claims rests on well-established precedent, the Court declines to certify any
of Jones’s claims for appellate review.
Conclusion
For these reasons, Jones’s petition for relief under § 2255 (R. 1) is denied. The
Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
4
ENTERED:
Honorable Thomas M. Durkin
United States District Judge
Dated: June 15, 2018
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?