MANNEBACH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 45

ORDER on Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) - For the reasons explained in this Order, Phillip Mannebach's motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is granted. Mannebach is entitled to resentencing. Final judg ment vacating Mannebach's sentence in No. 1:11-cr-155- SEB-TAB-7 shall now enter. The motion to vacate in No. 1:11-cr-155-SEB-7, dkt. 568 , is granted and the clerk shall docket this Order in No. 1:11-cr-155-SEB- 7. Mannebach's convictions remain intact. Mannebach shall remain in custody pending resentencing. (See Order.). Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 12/21/2020.(NAD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
PHILLIP E MANNEBACH,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-cv-01824-SEB-MJD

Entry Granting Motion for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
For the reasons explained in this Entry, the motion of Phillip Mannebach for relief pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be GRANTED.
I. The § 2255 Motion
A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the presumptive means by which a federal
prisoner can challenge his conviction or sentence. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343
(1974). A court may grant relief from a federal conviction or sentence pursuant to § 2255 "upon
the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was
in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack." 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(a). "Relief under this statute is available only in 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) (citing Prewitt v. United States, 83 F.3d 812, 816 (7th Cir. 1996); Barnickel v. United
States, 113 F.3d 704, 705 (7th Cir. 1997)).

II. Factual and Procedural Background
In 2011, Mannebach was charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or
more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (Count 1); one count of conspiracy to obtain proceeds from
methamphetamine trafficking activity through force, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Count 5);
and one count of conspiracy to possess a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 6). United States v. Mannebach, 1:11-cr-155-SEB-TAB-7 ("Cr.
Dkt."), dkt. 77. The § 924(c) offense in Count 6 was based on the § 1951 offense in Count 5. Id.
In 2012, the United States filed an Information pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, alleging
Mannebach had prior felony convictions that enhanced the statutory maximum term of
imprisonment for Counts 1 and 5. Cr. Dkt. 352. Mannebach was found guilty of all three counts
by a jury. Cr. Dkt. 389. Based on his prior drug convictions, he was sentenced to life for Counts 2
and 5. Cr. Dkt. 462. He was sentenced to 240 months for Count 6. Id.
Mannebach appealed, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. United States v. Mannebach, 551
Fed. Appx. 283 (7th Cir. 2014). Mannebach then filed a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Cr. Dkt. 536. That motion was denied on the merits on June 5, 2017. Mannebach v. United States,
1:15-cv-1601-SEB-DML. On June 13, 2018, the Seventh Circuit granted Mannebach authorization
to file this successive § 2255 motion. Cr. Dkt. 567.
III. Discussion
Mannebach seeks relief under § 2255 arguing that that his conviction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence is unconstitutionally vague
and therefore invalid.
The crime of violence at issue was conspiracy to obtain proceeds from methamphetamine

trafficking activity through force under 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Under Section 924(c)(3), a "crime of
violence" is defined as a felony that:
(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.
The Supreme Court held in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), that subsection (B) of
this statute – the so-called residual clause – is unconstitutionally vague. Under Davis therefore,
any § 924(c) conviction that relies on the residual clause is invalid. Mannebach argues that his
conviction for Hobbs Act extortion is invalid because it triggers the residual clause.
The United States agrees that Mannebach's conviction for Hobbs Act extortion is invalid
under Davis. But the United States argues that invalidating Mannebach's § 924(c)(3) conviction
does not impact his sentence because he is serving two life sentences. Mannebach is serving life
sentences under Count 1 and Count 5 based on the enhancement filed under 21 U.S.C. § 851. That
enhancement is based on his convictions for Indiana Dealing in a Schedule II Controlled Substance
and Possession of Methamphetamine. Dkt. 352. Mannebach contends that, if he is resentenced, he
could argue, under United States v. De La Torre, et al., 940 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2019), that these
convictions do not qualify as felony offenses supporting the life sentence.
Section 2255(b) provides that "[i]f the court finds that . . . the sentence imposed was not
authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or
infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to
collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner
or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate." In other
words, once the Court has found that Mannebach's sentence is invalid, it must "vacate and set the

judgment aside," then "resentence him . . . or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate." 28
U.S.C. § 2255(b).
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons explained in this Order, Phillip Mannebach's motion for relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 is granted. Mannebach is entitled to resentencing. Final judgment vacating
Mannebach's sentence in No. 1:11-cr-155-SEB-TAB-7 shall now enter. The motion to vacate in
No. 1:11-cr-155-SEB-7, dkt. [568], is granted and the clerk shall docket this Order in No. 1:11cr-155-SEB-7.
Mannebach's convictions remain intact. Mannebach shall remain in custody pending
resentencing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12/21/2020
Date: __________________

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Brian L. Reitz
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
Terry Wayne Tolliver
BRATTAIN MINNIX GARCIA
[e-mail]