Price v. USA-2255
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/16/2017. (c/m 10/16/2017 ch/sat) (tds, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JONATHAN NATHANIEL PRICE
Civil Action No. DKC 14-2369
Criminal Case No. DKC 09-0397
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
filed by Petitioner Jonathan Nathaniel Price (“Petitioner”) to
correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 63).
court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary.
sentence will be denied.
On July 20, 2009, a grand jury in the District Court of
count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon on June 4,
2009 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
(ECF No. 1).
Government filed a superseding information on December 2, 2009,
convicted felon on July 15, 2009.
(ECF No. 26).
waived indictment on December 4, 2009, and the court held a
guilty plea hearing.
(ECF No. 30).
Petitioner pled guilty to
both counts of the superseding information pursuant to a written
(ECF No. 48-1, at 1).
At sentencing on May 3,
2010, the court adopted the presentence report which found that
qualified as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).
Petitioner was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 132
superseding information and a consecutive term of twelve (12)
months on count two – to be followed by three (3) years of
(ECF No. 42).
Petitioner did not appeal.
Petitioner filed his first motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on May 2, 2011
(ECF No. 46) which was denied on February 23, 2015 (ECF Nos. 57
In 2015, the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States, ___
U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) struck down the residual clause
924(e)(2)(B)(ii) as unconstitutionally vague.
The Office of the
Federal Public Defender then filed the instant motion on behalf
of Petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that because the
includes the identical residual clause as that struck down in
Johnson, it is also void for vagueness.
(ECF No. 60).
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted
petition on June 27, 2016.
(ECF No. 62).
In 2017, however, the Supreme Court held in
United States, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), that the
informed Petitioner that in light of Beckles, it would no longer
be able to represent him.
On September 25, 2017, the Federal
Public Defender filed a motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No.
63), which this court granted (ECF No. 64).
Petitioner’s only claim is that under Johnson, the residual
If correct, the court would then have to determine
whether Petitioner’s robbery conviction qualifies as a “crime of
violence” under the remaining “enumerated offenses” clause or
“force” clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).
As the Federal Public Defender stated in its motion to
court stated, “[b]ecause the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a due process
vagueness challenge, § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause is not void
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to correct sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Petitioner will be denied.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Proceedings
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court is also 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
United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 659 (4th
A certificate of appealability may issue “only if
the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(B)(2).
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.
A separate order will follow.
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
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?