Williams v. USA - 2255

Filing 2

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

Download PDF
•• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JAMAR CLAYBORNE * WILLIAMS, JR., * Petitioner, * v. UNITED * STr\TES OF AMERICA, Respondent. * * Civ. Action No. RDB-16-2197 Crim. Action No. RDB-14-0418 * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 12, 2015, Jamar Clayborne Williams, Jr., Petitioner x ("Petitioner" "\Villiams") pled guilty to possession with the intent to distribute dimethylone, of 21 U.S.c. ~ 841(a)(I) (ECF No. 28.) During Petitioner's found that Petitioner's or in violation sentencing hearing, this Court possession with the intent to distribute dimethylone was a controlled substance offense and Petitioner's violence" under United prior convictions States Sentencing Guideline for robbery qualified as "crimes of (U.S.S.G.) ~ 4B1.2.(a). As a result, Petitioner was deemed a career offender and was sentenced to a term of one-hundred and twenty (120) months imprisonment. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in jolmsoll v. Ullited States, _ U.S. _, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) struck down the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal r\ct (ACCA), 18 U.S.c. ~ 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) Defender (OFPD) as unconstitutionally vague. The Office then filed a motion on behalf of Petitioner arguing that because the "Career Offender" of the Federal Public under 28 U.S.c. ~ 2255, provision in the Sentencing Guidelines includes 1 • the identical residual clause as that struck down in Jobnson, it is also void for vagueness. (ECF No. 53.) In 2017, however, the Supreme Court held in Beckles v. United States, _ U.S. _, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) that the advisory guidelines were not subject to Jobnson challenges. Subsequent to that decision, the OFPD informed Petitioner that in light of BeckleJ it would no longer be able to represent him. On September 18, 2017, the OFPD filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 54), which this Court granted. (ECF No. 55.) Pending before this Court is Petitioner's Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.c. ~ 2255. (ECF No. 53.) The parties' submissions have been reviewed, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner Williams' Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.c. ~ 2255 (ECF No. 53) is DENIED. ANALYSIS Petitioner's only claim is that under Jobnson, the residual clause that this Court applied while sentencing Petitioner is void for vagueness. Therefore, whether Petitioner's this Court must determine robbery offenses qualify as crimes of violence under the remaining "enumerated offenses" clause or "force" clause of U.S.S.G ~ 4B1.2(a). I\S the OFrD stated in its Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, however, in light of BeckleJ this argument is without merit. ,\s the BeckleJ Court stated, "[b]ecause the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a due process vagueness challenge, ~ 4B 1.2(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. 53) is DENIED. 2 • CONCLUSION For the reason stated above, Petitioner W'illiams' Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.c. ~ 2255 (ECF No. 53) 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. United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 659 (4th Cir. 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 claims or wrong. See S/a,'k v. M"Danie/, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see a/so Mi//er-E/ v. Cod ere/I, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). Because reasonable jurists would not find Williams' claims debatable, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. A separate Order follows. Dated: September 20, 2017 Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge 3

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?