Johnson v. USA - 2255
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 9/29/2016. (c/m 9/29/16 jnls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
DESHON JOHNSON,
*
Petitioner,
*
v.
*
Civil Action No. RDB-16-2652
*
Criminal Action No. RDB-09-0272
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The pro se Petitioner Deshon Johnson (“Petitioner” or “Johnson”) pled guilty to one
count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d)1. J., p. 1, ECF
No. 64. Subsequently, Judge Quarles2 of this Court sentenced Johnson to 180 months
imprisonment. Id. at 2. Currently pending before this Court are Petitioner’s Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 109)3 and
the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 111). 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’s Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 109)
is DENIED, and the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate (ECF
No. 111) is GRANTED.
1 Petitioner was charged with seven counts, including armed bank robbery (Count IV). However, the
remaining counts (Counts I, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX) were dismissed in consideration of his plea agreement.
2 This case was reassigned to the undersigned Judge Richard D. Bennett on June 20, 2016.
3 Petitioner’s Motion was initially filed as a Motion for Authorization to File a Second or Successive Section
2255 Motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255(h). See U.S.C.A. Order, p. 1, ECF No. 108. However,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit transferred Petitioner’s Motion to this Court
because he had not yet filed an initial Section 2255 Motion. Id. at 1-2. Accordingly, Petitioner’s pending
Motion will be treated as a Motion to Vacate, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
1
BACKGROUND
The pro se Petitioner Eric Deshon Johnson (“Petitioner” or “Johnson”) was charged
with seven counts, including armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and
(d) (Count IV). Indictment, ECF No. 1. Johnson pled guilty to armed bank robbery (Count
IV), pursuant to a plea agreement (ECF No. 42), and the Government dismissed the
remaining counts against him (Counts I, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX). See J., p. 1, ECF No. 64.
Subsequently, Judge Quarles4 of this Court sentenced Johnson to 180 months imprisonment
as to Count IV. Id. at 2. Johnson did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Documents filed pro se are “liberally construed” and are “held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (citation omitted). A prisoner sentenced by this Court “claiming the right to be
released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence,
or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject
to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or
correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). A one-year statute of limitation applies to
Section 2255 motions to vacate. The limitation period runs from the latest of . . . “the date
on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on
collateral review.” Id. at § 2255(f)(3).
4 This case was reassigned to the undersigned Judge Richard D. Bennett on June 20, 2016.
2
ANALYSIS
Petitioner contends that “Bank Robbery and Hobbs Act is no[ ] longer a crime of
violence” under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.
Ct. 2551 (2015). Mot. to Vacate, p. 3-4, ECF No. 109. Accordingly, he requests that this
Court vacate “[a]ll enhancements under criminal history (guidelines).” Id.
The Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), mandates a fifteenyear minimum prison sentence for anyone “who violates section 922(g) of [Title 18] and has
three previous convictions by any court referenced in 922(g)(1) of [Title 18] for a violent
felony or serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another
. . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). In Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the Supreme
Court held that the “residual clause” of the ACCA was unconstitutional because it failed to
provide sufficient notice of the types of convictions covered under the ACCA.
The
Supreme Court issued its opinion in Johnson on June 26, 2015. Therefore, the deadline to file
a Section 2255 motion for relief under Johnson was June 26, 2016. However, Petitioner’s
Motion was not filed in this Court until July 21, 2016, significantly after the one-year statute
of limitations had run. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion is untimely.
Even if Petitioner’s Motion was timely, he is still ineligible for relief in light of the
Johnson decision. Although Petitioner alludes to the career offender guidelines in his Motion
to Vacate, he was not sentenced as a career offender. Petitioner’s offense level was 27, with
a criminal history category of V.
Statement of Reasons, ECF No. 65 (Sealed).
The
Presentence Report does not indicate that any sentencing enhancements were applied to
Petitioner’s offense level based on criminal history, and the Guideline Provisions paragraph
3
does not mention the career offender guidelines or the Armed Career Criminal Act. See
Presentence Report, p. 4-5, 10.
Accordingly, the Johnson decision is inapplicable to
Petitioner’s case, and his Motion must fail.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 109) is DENIED, and the Government’s
Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 111) is GRANTED.
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 right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where the court
denies petitioner’s motion on its merits, a petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
that reasonable jurists would find the court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). Because reasonable jurists would not find Petitioner’s
claim debatable, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
A separate Order follows.
Dated:
September 29, 2016
__ /s/
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge
4
_
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?