Johnson v. USA - 2255

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 272 Amended Motion to Vacate (2255) as to Christopher V. Johnson (1); DENYING 274 Supplemental Motion to Vacate (2255) as to Christopher V. Johnson (1); DENYING 265 Motion to Vacate (2255) as to Christopher V. Johnson (1). Signed by Chief Judge James K. Bredar on 4/23/2018. (c/m) (hmls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*

v.

*

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON

*

Defendant
*

*

CIVIL NO. JKB-17-2336
CRIMINAL NO. JKB-14-0356

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Now pending before the Court is the Defendant’s MOTION TO VACATE
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 265), AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE UNDER 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 272), and SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO VACATE UNDER 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 274). The Government has responded (ECF No. 286) and the time for
any reply has expired.
The three motions will be denied, largely for the reasons set out in the Government’s
response. The Court has carefully considered the three motions and the arguments submitted in
support thereof. By the standards applicable at this post-conviction stage, the Court cannot
conclude that Mr. Johnson was treated unfairly, unlawfully, or in a manner inconsistent with the
requirements of the United States Constitution. It is clear that he has a disagreement with the
United States Bureau of Prisons with respect to how the New Jersey time should be counted, i.e.,
whether it should be run concurrent or consecutive.

But nothing in the BOP’s apparent

application of the arcane regulations on this subject suggest that defense counsel gave advice or
otherwise performed in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of the Sixth Amendment as
interpreted in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). In every respect, including the

advising of his client about how his sentence might be discharged, counsel’s performance was
above the floor set in Strickland.
To the extent there are other claims presented here, they were addressed on direct appeal.
At this stage they are groundless.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 265, 272, and 274) are DENIED.
DATED this 23rd day of April, 2018.

BY THE COURT:

____________/s/______________________
James K. Bredar
Chief Judge