Chandler v. USA - 2255
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 9/22/2016. (c/m 9/22/16 bmhs, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Criminal No. ELH-13-00091
Civil No.: ELH-16-2083
RANSON CHANDLER, JR.,
On June 13, 2016, Ranson Chandler, Jr. filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See ECF 236 (the “Petition”). The government has
filed a response in opposition to the Petition. ECF 238 (the “Opposition”). Chandler has not
replied, and the time to do so has expired.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b), a hearing is required “[u]nless the motion and the files and
the records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief . . . .” This is
such a case; no hearing is necessary. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny the Petition.
Factual and Procedural Background
Pursuant to a plea agreement (ECF 132; ECF 133), Chandler entered a plea of guilty on
December 27, 2013 (ECF 131) to two offenses: conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a
substance containing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count One), and possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count
Five).1 The plea was entered under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) (ECF 132, ¶¶ 8, 14), in which the parties
jointly agreed to a sentence of 63 months incarceration as to Count One, and a consecutive
In ECF 238, the government erroneously states that the plea was entered January 3,
2014. This discrepancy is immaterial.
sentence of 60 months imprisonment as to Count Five. Id. Notably, Count One and Count Five
each carry a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years, and the sentence for Count
Five must run consecutive to the sentence for Count One. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B); 18
U.S.C. § 924(c).
Prior to sentencing, the United States Probation Office completed a Presentence Report
(“PSR”). See ECF 159. As to Count One, the PSR reflects that Chandler had an adjusted final
offense level of 25 and a criminal history category of II, resulting in an advisory sentencing
guideline range of 63-78 months’ imprisonment as to Count One. ECF 159 at 9. And, under
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4(a), the guideline sentence for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is the minimum
term of imprisonment required by statute, which in this case is five years, consecutive to any
other term of imprisonment. Id. at 7.
At the sentencing held on April 11, 2014, the Court imposed the agreed upon total
sentence of 123 months of imprisonment. ECF 173; ECF 174; ECF 175. Thereafter, pursuant to
Amendment 782, and by consent of the parties, the sentence as to Count One was reduced to the
mandatory minimum of 60 months. ECF 222; ECF 231; ECF 232. Thus, Chandler is now serving
a total sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment.
In his Petition, Chandler argues that he is entitled to relief under Johnson v. United
States, ____ U.S. ____, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). I agree with the government that Johnson does
not afford any relief to Chandler.
As noted, Chandler was convicted of two offenses and is serving the congressionally
mandated minimum for each one. Count Five, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, constituted a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2). This section defines the term
“drug trafficking crime” as “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.) or
chapter 705 of title 46.” It does not require a predicate crime of violence, nor does it involve a
residual clause. Id.
Thus, as the government correctly notes, “Johnson has no import on the Petitioner’s
conviction or sentence.” ECF 238 at 3. Indeed, as noted, Chandler is serving the mandatory
minimum sentences required by law for each offense, and those sentences do not turn on whether
Chandler has a criminal history that includes violent felonies, crimes of violence, or serious drug
For the reasons stated herein, the Court shall deny the Petition.
A Certificate of
Appealability shall not issue. An Order follows.
Date: September 22, 2016
Ellen L. Hollander
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?