Crump v. United States of America
OPINION; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 1:16-CV-162
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
On February 16, 2016, Movant, Dennis Crump, filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To
Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody, seeking relief pursuant to
the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015),
which held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague.
Id. at 2563. Because Crump had previously filed a § 2255 Motion, this Court transferred the motion
to the Sixth Circuit as a second or successive § 2255 Motion. (ECF No. 3.) On October 21, 2016,
the Sixth Circuit authorized Crump to proceed with a second or successive § 2255 Motion in light
The Government has filed a response to Crump’s § 2255 Motion, Crump has filed a reply,
and the Government has filed a notice of supplemental authority. For the reasons that follow, the
Court will deny Crump’s § 2255 Motion.
On April 4, 2009, Crump was charged in a three-count superseding indictment. Count 1
charged Crump with being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
921(a), 924(a)(2), and 924(e). Count 2 charged Crump with one count of possession of cocaine with
intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). Count 3 charged
Crump with possessing firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1)(A)(i). Crump pled not guilty and proceeded to trial, which began on August 25, 2009.
On the second day of trial, Crump pled guilty to all three counts of the superseding indictment.
The presentence investigation report determined that Crump was an armed career criminal
under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because he had one prior conviction for felonious assault, in violation of
M.C.L. § 750.82, and two prior convictions for serious drug offenses. (Case No. 1:09-CR-73-01,
PSR ¶¶ 36, 44–46.) On January 14, 2010, this Court sentenced Crump to 220 months on Count 1,
220 months on Count 2, to run concurrently with Count 1, and 60 months on Count 3, to run
consecutively with Counts 1 and 2.
The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) provides for a mandatory minium sentence of 15
years imprisonment for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) if the defendant has three prior convictions
for a “violent felony” or a “serious drug offense” or both. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The ACCA contains
three clauses that determine whether a prior conviction qualified as a “violent felony”: (1) the
“elements clause”; (2) the “enumerated offenses clause”; and (3) the “residual clause.” United
States v. Patterson, 853 F.3d 298, 302 (6th Cir. 2017). Johnson invalidated only the “residual
clause.” See Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2563 (“Today’s decision does not call into question application
of the Act to the four enumerated offenses, or the remainder of the Act’s definition of violent
felony.”). Because assault is not one of the enumerated offenses under the ACCA, whether Crump
is entitled to relief under Johnson depends on whether felonious assault under M.C.L. § 750.82 falls
within the elements clause.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Harris, 853 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2017),
squarely answers the question. In Harris, the court held that felonious assault under M.C.L. §
750.82 constitutes a “crime of violence” under the “elements clause” of § 4B1.2(a) of the Sentencing
Guidelines. Applying the categorical approach, the court said that “[t]aken together, the elements
[of an offense under M.C.L. § 750.82] entail ‘the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical
force’ under the federal Sentencing Guidelines.” Id. at 321. The court noted that felonious assault
qualifies as a crime of violence because it proscribes not “common law assault but common law
assault with a dangerous weapon,” which suffices to render the offense a “crime of violence.” Id.
at 322. Because the courts interpret the elements clause of the Sentencing Guidelines and the
elements clause of the ACCA “the same way,” id. at 320; see also United States v. McMurray, 653
F.3d 367, 371 n.1 (6th Cir. 2011) (“Whether a conviction is a ‘violent felony’ under the ACCA is
analyzed in the same way as whether a conviction is a ‘crime of violence’ under the United States
Sentencing Guidelines.”), Harris controls the outcome of Crump’s motion.
Accordingly, Johnson affords Crump no relief.
Having concluded that Crump is not entitled to relief under Johnson, the Court must next
determine whether a certificate of appealability should issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A
certificate should issue if a movant has demonstrated a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Sixth Circuit has disapproved issuance of blanket
denials of certificates of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466, 467 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather,
the district court must “engage in a reasoned assessment of each claim” to determine whether a
certificate is warranted. Id. at 467. Each issue must be considered under the standards set forth by
the Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595 (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d
Under Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S. Ct. at 1604, to warrant a grant of the certificate, “[t]he
petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” The Court concludes that reasonable jurists could not
find this Court’s conclusion that Crump is not entitled to relief under Johnson debatable or wrong.
Therefore, the Court will deny Crump a certificate of appealability.
An Order consistent with this Opinion will enter.
Dated: June 29, 2017
/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
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?