Williams 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
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