Britton v. USA - 2255

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 9/20/2017. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

•

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
WILTON BRITTON,

*

Petitioner,

*

UNITED STATES OF l\MERICA,

*
*

Respondent.

*

Civ. Action No. RDB-16-2003
Crim. Action No. RDB-05-038

*

v.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 14, 2005, Petitioner Wilton Britton ("Petitioner" or "Britton") pled guilty to
bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C ~ 2113(a)(f). (ECF No. 17.) During Petitioner's
sentencing

hearing, this Court found that Petitioner's

bank robbery offense and prior

convictions for federal bank robbery and escape qualified as "crimes of violence" under
United States Sentencing Guideline (U.S.S.G.) ~ 4B1.2. As a result, Petitioner was deemed a
career offender

and sentenced

to a term of one-hundred

and eighty (180) months

imprisonment.
Ten years later, the Supreme Court in jolJl1Jon v. United States, _

U.S. _,

135 S. Ct.

2551 (2015) struck down the residual clause of the .Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18
U.S.C

~ 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) as unconstirutionally

Defender

(OFPD)

vague. The Office of the Federal Public

then filed a motion on behalf of Petitioner under 28 U.S.C ~ 2255,

arguing that because the "Career Offender" provision in the Sentencing Guidelines includes

1

the identical residual clause as that struck down in jolJllson, it is also void for vagueness. (ECF
No. 19.)
In 2017, however, the Supreme Court held in Beddes v. Ullited States, _
S. Ct. 886 (2017) that the advisory guidelines
Subseguent

were not subject

U.S. _,

to johnson

137

challenges.

to that decision, the OFPD informed Petitioner that in light of Beckles it would

no longer be able to represent

him. On September

18, 2017, the OfPD

filed a Motion to

Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 21), which this Court granted. (ECF No. 22.)
Pending

before

this Court is Petitioner's

I\[otion to Correct

U.S.c. ~ 2255. (ECF No. 19.) The parties' submissions
is necessary.

Sentence

Under 28

have been reviewed, and no hearing

See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner

Britton's Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.s.c. ~ 2255 (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.

ANALYSIS
Petitioner's
while sentencing
whether

only claim is that under johnson, the residual clause that this Court applied
Petitioner

Petitioner's

is void for vagueness.

Therefore,

bank robbery offense and prior convictions

this Court must determine
for federal bank robbery

and escape gualify as crimes of violence under the remaining "enumerated

offenses" clause

or "force" clause of U.S.S.G ~ 4B 1.2(a).
As the OFPD
Beddes this argument
Sentencing

Guidelines

stated in its Motion
is without merit.

1\S

to Withdraw

as Counsel, however, in light of

the Beckie!" Court stated, "[b]ecause the advisory

are not subject to a due process vagueness challenge, ~ 4B1.2(a)'s

residual clause is not void for vagueness."

137 S. Ct. at 897. for this reason, Petitioner's

pending Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.

2

CONCLUSION
For the reason stated above, Petitioner Britton's Motion to Correct Sentence Under
28 U.S.c. ~ 2255 (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing

Proceedings

under 28 U.S.c. ~ 2255,

the court is required to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order
adverse to the applicant.

A certificate of appealability is a "jurisdictional

prerequisite"

to an

appeal from the court's earlier order. Uniled Slales v. l-ladde!1,475 F.3d 652, 659 (4th Cit.
2007). A certificate of appealability may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional
denies petitioner's
that reasonable
debatable

right." 28 U.s.c.

~ 2253(c)(2). Where the court

motion on its merits, a petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
jurists would

find the court's

assessment

of the constitutional

or wrong. See Sla,.k v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also Miller-EI v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

Because reasonable jurists would not find Britton's

claims debatable, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
A separate Order follows.

Dated:

claims

September 20, 2017

Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge

3