Randolph v. USA - 2255

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 11/6/13. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m by chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MARK LINN RANDOLPH
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

:
:
:
:
:
...o0o...

Civil No. CCB-13-1227
Criminal No. CCB-09-0244

MEMORANDUM
Mark Linn Randolph, a federal prison inmate, filed a timely motion to vacate his sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion shall be
denied.
Randolph pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base under an
agreement that stipulated to a sentence of no less than 60 and no more than 151 months
incarceration. He was found to be a career offender with a guideline range of 151-188 months,
based in part on convictions for assault under Maryland law, despite his counsel’s argument to
the contrary.1 Nonetheless, the court granted a variant sentence of 108 months, within the agreed
range, after considering the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Randolph’s
serious criminal history even apart from the career offender designation and his level of
culpability in the drug conspiracy.
Clearly, counsel was not ineffective regarding the career offender status. He argued
against the designation but was not successful in the Fourth Circuit. The law has changed in both
the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court since 2011. See Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct.
2276 (2013); United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2012). The Supreme Court has not,

1 The Fourth Circuit affirmed that finding. 444 Fed. App’x 682 (4th Cir. 2011).

1

however, indicated that Descamps applies retroactively to cases on collateral appeal, and this
court is not aware of any circuit court opinion so holding. In any event, Randolph has not been
prejudiced because the sentence was not based on his career offender status. The same sentence
would have been imposed because of his lengthy criminal record and culpability for the offense,
even if he were not a career offender. (See Sent’g Tr., ECF No. 325-2, at 61-67.)
Accordingly, a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) will not be issued
and the motion to vacate will be denied by separate Order which follows.

November 6, 2013
Date

/s/
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge

2