Mosley v. USA

Filing 15

ORDER re 11 MOTION to Amend/Correct 10 Clerk's Judgment filed by Danyahle L. Mosley. The Court's original Order denying the Motion to Amend (Doc. 14) contained a typographical error that is corrected by this Order. Specifically, the M otion to Amend/Correct Clerk's Judgment was incorrectly identified as Doc. 9 in the conclusion to the original order. This Order corrects the error. No other changes were made by the Court. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 10/10/2017. (jkb2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANYAHLE L. MOSLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-CV-00206 -NJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Danyahle Mosley’s Motion to Amend the Judgment (Doc. 11) is pending
before the Court. On January 6, 2017, this Court denied Mosley’s motion brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which challenged his enhanced sentence as an armed career
criminal. (Doc. 9). In the Order, the Court notified Mosely of his right to file a motion to
alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. 9, p. 5).
Mosely timely filed the pending Motion to Amend. Because the Court finds no manifest
error of law or fact, Mosely’s Motion to Amend is denied.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mosley was indicted on February 21, 2013, on one count of felon in possession of a
firearm. United States v. Mosley, SDIL Case No. 3:13-cr-30026, Doc. 1. He pled guilty to the
charge two months later. Id. at Doc. 21. As part of the plea agreement, the Government
and Mosley agreed he was subject to an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career
Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), based on his criminal history, which includes

Page 1 of 4

convictions for residential burglary and robbery. Id. at Doc. 21. The district judge also
concluded that Mosley was an armed career criminal, and he sentenced Mosley to the
statutory minimum of fifteen years in prison. See id. at Docs. 38, 42, 43. Almost
two-and-a-half years later, on February 26, 2016, Mosely filed a Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence, challenging his enhanced sentence as an armed career
criminal based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551
(2015). The Court denied that motion. (Doc. 9). Mosely requests the Court reconsider its
ruling.
ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a court to amend a judgment only if
the movant demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact or presents newly discovered
evidence. See Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 683 F.3d 805, 814 (7th Cir. 2012). The purpose
of this rule is to avoid unnecessary appeals by allowing the court to correct its own
errors. Id. at 813. The decision to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion is entrusted to the
“sound judgment” of the district court. Id. Rule 59 should not be used to advance
arguments or theories that could have been made prior to the district court rendering a
judgment. Id. Nor should it be used to reassert previously rejected arguments. See Vesely
v. Armslist L.L.C., 762 F.3d 661, 666 (7th Cir. 2014). Motions pursuant to Rule 59(e) should
only be granted in rare circumstances. See Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc.,
906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990).
Mosley argues the Court’s finding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v.
United States was not applicable to his prior convictions is an error of law. (Doc. 11, pp.

Page 2 of 4

1-3). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held the imposition of an enhanced sentence under
the residual clause of the ACCA violates due process. Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct.
2551, 2557 (2015) (emphasis added). Mosely’s convictions, however, do not fall under
that clause.
A defendant convicted of being in possession of a weapon faces more severe
punishment if he has three or more previous convictions for a “violent felony.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e). A violent felony is defined in three different ways:
(1) As a crime that “has as an element, the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person of another” (referred to
as the elements clause);
(2) The crimes of burglary, arson, extortion, or a crime that involves the use
of explosives (referred to as the enumerated crimes clause); or
(3) A crime that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious
potential risk of physical injury to another” (referred to as the residual
clause).
18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(b). The only clause that was impacted by the Supreme Court’s
decision in Johnson was the final clause, known as the residual clause. Price v. United
States, 795 F.3d 731, 732 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2557). None of
Mosely’s prior convictions fall under that clause.
As the Court stated in its original Order, the residential burglaries are specifically
listed in the enumerated crimes clause (#2 above), and the robbery conviction qualifies
as a crime listed under the elements clause (#1 above), because the Illinois statute
requires the state to prove “the use or threatened use of force against another.” (Doc. 2,
pp. 2-3, citing 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/18-1(a)). As a result, none of the prior convictions

Page 3 of 4

considered by the Court when enhancing Mosley’s sentence under the ACCA were
based on the residual clause found unconstitutional in Johnson.
The arguments that Mosely makes, and the case law he cites, all relate to whether
a conviction qualifies under either the enumerated or elements clauses. (Doc. 11, p. 4).
Unfortunately for Mr. Mosely, the time for making these arguments has long since run.
A prisoner has a one year period to raise a claim under §2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
Generally, the one-year statute of limitations starts to run on the date the judgment of
conviction becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). For Mr. Mosely, that was October 7,
2013; thus, the statute of limitations for raising claims under the enumerated and
elements clauses ran in October, 2014.1
Because Mosely’s convictions do not fall under the residual clause of the ACCA,
and his arguments regarding the other clauses are untimely, Mosely is not entitled to
relief under § 2255.
CONCLUSION
Finding the Court made no error of law or fact, Mosely’s Motion to Amend the
Judgment denying habeas relief (Doc. 11) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 10, 2017
/s Nancy J. Rosenstengel
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
1

Mosely’s original claims under the residual clause were timely because they related to a newly
recognized right. When a right is newly recognized by the Supreme Court, the one year statute of
limitations begins to run from the date the Supreme Court recognizes and makes that right retroactive.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). Thus, when the Supreme Court decided Johnson, and found that claims regarding
the residual clause were subject to retroactive collateral attack, Mosely was entitled to raise those claims
within one year of that finding. See Price v. United States, 795 F.3d 731, 732 (7th Cir. 2015).

Page 4 of 4