Brown v. USA

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING 11 First MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, DENYING 1 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 petition, and DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. Further, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 6/29/17. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DARNELL BROWN,
Petitioner,
Case No. 15-CV-1232-DRH

vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent.
ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:

On July 27, 2015, petitioner Darnell Brown filed a motion to vacate, set aside
or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). In his § 2255 motion,
Brown challenges his designation and sentence as a career offender.
The Court, after reviewing the pleadings, and pursuant to Administrative
Order 176, referred the case to the Federal Public Defender given Johnson v. United

States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) and the fact that Brown challenges his career offender
status (Doc. 14). Thereafter, the Federal Public Defender moved to stay this case
pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Beckles v. United States,
616 Fed.Appx 415 (11th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, --- U.S. ---, 136 S.Ct. 2510, --L.E.2d --- (2016) (Doc. 7), which the Court granted (Doc. 8). On March 6, 2017, the
Supreme Court issued its decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 866 (2017)
(holding broadly that advisory sentencing guidelines are not subject to vagueness

challenges under the Due Process Clause, and thus, the reasoning of Johnson does
not extend to § 4B1.2’s residual clause).
In light of Beckles, the Federal Public Defender moved to withdraw as counsel
(Doc. 11). The FPD asserts that petitioner’s claim surrounding his career offender
status is not viable because the Beckles decision forecloses any colorable claim for
relief based upon Johnson. The Court, entered a show cause order directing
petitioner to show cause—no later than June 20, 2017— why the undersigned
should not grant the Assistant FPD's motion to withdraw and deny Brown’s pro se §
2255 petition (Doc. 13). Brown failed to respond.

Clearly, Beckles precludes

Brown’s § 2255 petition and there is no basis to vacate or correct Brown’s sentence.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, this Court
denies a certificate of appealability in this case. “A certificate of appealability should
issue only when the prisoner shows both “that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). This
Court concludes that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether
petitioner’s motion states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and also
concludes that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether this Court
correctly dismissed with petitioner’s motion based on Beckles.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES and DISMISSES with prejudice Brown’s
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (Doc. 1) and GRANTS the FPD’s motion to withdraw (Doc.
11). Further, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court

DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of the United States of
America and against Darnell Brown.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 29th day of June, 2017.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2017.06.29
13:43:16 -05'00'
United States District Judge