Maddox v. USA -2255

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION as to Laray Anthony Maddox. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 9/12/2017. (sat, Chambers)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : LARAY ANTHONY MADDOX : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 14-1936 Criminal No. DKC 08-0430-002 : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for resolution are: (1) a motion filed by Petitioner Laray Anthony Maddox (“Petitioner”) to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 134); (2) a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s motion to vacate filed by Respondent United States of America (“Respondent”) (ECF No. 165); and (3) an unopposed motion to seal filed by Respondent (ECF No. 166). The issues have been briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following reasons, the motion to correct sentence will be denied, the motion to dismiss will be granted, and the motion to seal will be granted. I. Background On December 4, 2008, Petitioner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fifty or more grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (ECF No. 56). On June 8, 2009, Petitioner was sentenced. Based on two prior Maryland convictions for second degree assault, he was found to be a career offender and received a sentence enhancement pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Sentencing Guidelines”) § 4B1.1. sentenced to 180 months. He was (ECF No. 165, at 1-2). On March 19, 2014, Petitioner’s sentence was reduced to 92 months because of a change in the Sentencing Guidelines made retroactive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(u). (ECF No. 128). On June 14, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. issues presented” and The motion did not “fully brief the requested petition at a later time.” “leave to (ECF No. 134). supplement this On November 21, 2014, Petitioner’s sentence was reduced to 77 months because of another change in the Sentencing Guidelines. (ECF No. 157). On May 18, 2015, Petitioner began a five-year term of supervised relief. On (ECF No. 157). August 3, 2016, when Petitioner had still not supplemented his motion after more than two years, Petitioner was ordered to show cause as to why his motion should not be denied as moot noting that Petitioner had served his term of imprisonment. (ECF No. 161). Petitioner responded arguing that the petition was not moot because his supervised release was a form of custody. He asserted timeliness on the ground that Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013), established a 2 new right and he had filed the petition within one year of the decision. Based on his interpretation of Descamps, he requested the court reduce his term of supervised release because he was no longer a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. (ECF No. 162). In its response, Respondent argued that the motion was untimely because Descamps had not established a new right, the claim was procedurally defaulted, challenges to the application of the career offender guidelines are not cognizable in a collateral review, and the term of supervised release was appropriate. II. (ECF No. 165). Analysis A one-year petitions filed statute under of 28 limitations U.S.C. § 2255. shall run applies to Section provides that: The limitation latest of— period from the (1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action; (3) 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; or 3 habeas 2255(f) (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Here, Petitioner asserts timeliness pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) arguing that Descamps established a new right made retroactively applicable. Descamps, however, only “clarified whether courts may apply the modified categorical approach to assess, for [Armed Career Criminal Act] sentencing enhancement purposes, the violent nature of a defendant’s prior conviction under an indivisible criminal statute[.]” Royal, 731 F.3d 333, 340 (4th Cir. 2013). stated outright modified that categorical a sentencing approach Descamps, 133 S.Ct. at 2285. resolve[d]” the issue, id. at States v. In Descamps, the Court court for United an could not indivisible use the statute. There, precedent had “all but 2283, and a different result “would [have] contravene[d] [the Court’s] prior decisions and the principles underlying them,” id. at 2282. Thus, Descamps did not establish a new rule of law but applied an existing one. United States v. Morgan, 845 F.3d 664, 667 (5th Cir. 2017) (“We agree with our sister courts that Descamps did not establish a new rule.”); Mays v. United States, 817 F.3d 728, 734 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Descamps merely did clarified not announce existing a new precedent.”); rule — Headbird its v. holding United States, 813 F.3d 1092, 1097 (8th Cir. 2016) (“We agree with other circuits that the decision in Descamps 4 was dictated by the general principles set forth in existing precedent and did not establish a new rule.”); Ezell v. United States, 778 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 2015) (“The Supreme Court did not announce a new rule in Descamps.”); United States v. Montes, 570 F.App’x 830, 831 (10th Cir. 2014) (“Descamps decision did not recognize a new right.”); United States v. Davis, 751 F.3d 769, 775 (6th Cir. 2014) (“The Supreme Court in Descamps explained that it was not announcing a new rule”). Therefore, Petitioner’s motion, filed more than five years after judgment was entered, will be denied as untimely, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), and Respondent’s motion to dismiss will be granted. (ECF No. 165). III. Motion to Seal Because Respondent’s motion to dismiss has limited public value, much of the information is already available, and it contains personal and confidential information, the unopposed motion to seal Respondent’s motion to dismiss will be granted. See In re Knight Pub. Co., 743 F.2d 231, 236 (4th Cir. 1984). IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the motion to correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Petitioner will be denied, the motion to dismiss filed by Respondent will be granted, and the motion to seal filed by Respondent will be granted. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court is also required to issue or 5 deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A certificate of appealability is a “jurisdictional prerequisite” earlier order. United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 659 (4th Cir. 2007). to an appeal from the court’s A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” motion is denied appealability demonstrate debatable on will both whether 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(B)(2). procedural not “(1) the issue that grounds, unless jurists petition of states a the certificate petitioner reason a Where a would valid claim of can find of it the denial of a constitutional right and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal marks omitted). Upon review of the record, the court finds that Petitioner does not satisfy the above standards. Accordingly, the court will decline to issue a certificate of appealability on the issues which have been resolved against Petitioner. A separate order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 6

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?