Price v. USA-2255
Filing
2
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
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 14-2369
Criminal Case No. DKC 09-0397
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently
pending
and
ready
for
resolution
is
a
motion
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.
105.6.
For
the
following
reasons,
the
motion
The
Local Rule
to
correct
sentence will be denied.
I.
Background
On July 20, 2009, a grand jury in the District Court of
Maryland
returned
an
indictment
charging
Petitioner
with
one
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).
The
Government filed a superseding information on December 2, 2009,
adding
an
additional
count
of
possession
convicted felon on July 15, 2009.
of
a
firearm
(ECF No. 26).
by
a
Petitioner
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
plea agreement.
(ECF No. 48-1, at 1).
At sentencing on May 3,
2010, the court adopted the presentence report which found that
Petitioner’s
conviction
of
robbery
with
a
deadly
weapon
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
months
-
consisting
of
120
months
on
count
one
of
the
superseding information and a consecutive term of twelve (12)
months on count two – to be followed by three (3) years of
supervised release.
(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
and 58).
In 2015, the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States, ___
U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) struck down the residual clause
of
the
Armed
Career
Criminal
Act
(ACCA),
924(e)(2)(B)(ii) as unconstitutionally vague.
18
U.S.C.
§
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
“career
offender”
provision
in
the
Sentencing
Guidelines
includes the identical residual clause as that struck down in
Johnson, it is also void for vagueness.
(ECF No. 60).
The
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted
2
authorization
for
Petitioner
petition on June 27, 2016.
to
file
a
second
or
successive
(ECF No. 62).
In 2017, however, the Supreme Court held in
Beckles v.
United States, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), that the
advisory
guidelines
Subsequent
to
were
that
not
subject
decision,
the
to
Johnson
Federal
challenges.
Public
Defender
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).
II.
Analysis
Petitioner’s only claim is that under Johnson, the residual
clause
that
vagueness.
this
court
applied
at
sentencing
is
void
for
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
withdraw
as
counsel,
without merit.
in
As the
light
Beckles
of
Beckles
this
argument
is
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
vagueness.”
137
S.
Ct.
3
at
897.
For
this
reason,
Petitioner’s
pending
motion
to
vacate
(ECF
No.
63)
will
be
denied.
III. Conclusion
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
“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.”
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.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
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?