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
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?