Harrison v. USA - 2255

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 12/5/2017. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND STANLEY HARRISON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : : CIVIL NO. CCB-16-2419 : Criminal No. CCB-06-0478 : ...o0o... MEMORANDUM Federal prison inmate Stanley Harrison has filed a motion to correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 380) and an amended motion (ECF No. 387). The government has responded by a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 394). Harrison’s motions must be denied.1 Harrison was sentenced as a career offender following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute heroin. His career offender guideline resulted from three prior serious drug offenses, not crimes of violence. Because he did not challenge his career offender status at sentencing or on his direct appeal, the claim is procedurally barred. To the extent he relies on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), he cannot prevail because Johnson did not apply to the definition of predicate drug offenses or to career offender sentences under the advisory guidelines. Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 892-95 (2017). Finally, Harrison’s claim is time-barred, because it was filed more than one year after his direct appeal concluded. While Johnson announced a new law permitting an additional year to file a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), Mathis v. U.S., 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) did not. Accordingly, it would be futile to permit Harrison to amend his motion to vacate. 1 Harrison was sentenced by Senior Judge J. Frederick Motz, who is no longer hearing cases This case has been transferred to me for decision. No certificate of appealability will be granted. A separate order follows. December 5, 2017 Date /s/ Catherine C. Blake 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?