Haddock v. USA
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence filed by Petitioner Andrew L. Haddock, 3 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence filed by Petitioner Andrew L. Haddock. An order consistent with this Memorandum will be entered separately. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 7/13/17. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ANDREW L. HADDOCK,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:16-CV-185 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM
Before the Court is the motion of Andrew L. Haddock to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States has not
filed a response.
I. Background
Haddock pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition (Counts 1 and 3), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and §
924(a)(2), and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking
crime (Count 4), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He was sentenced to
concurrent 46-month terms of imprisonment on Counts 1 and 3, and a consecutive
60-month term on Count 4. At sentencing, the Court determined that Haddock’s
base offense level was 24 because he had he had two prior felony convictions for a
“crime of violence” or a controlled substance offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2).1
1
Section 4B1.2(a) provides that a crime of violence is a felony offense that “has as an
element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of
another” or that is murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated assault, a
forcible sex offense, robbery, arson, extortion, or the use or unlawful possession of a
firearm as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) or explosive material as defined in 18 U.S.C. §
II. Discussion
Haddock argues that the Court should vacate his sentence because his
sentencing enhancement is invalid in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the
Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), was void for vagueness.
The holding in Johnson is inapplicable here because Haddock was not sentenced
under the ACCA.
In Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), the Court held that the
Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a void-for-vagueness challenge under the
Due Process Clause, and more specifically, that the “crime of violence” clause of
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) is not void for vagueness. Because Haddock’s sentencing
enhancement was imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines, not under the residual
clause of the ACCA, his argument fails.
***
For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that Haddock is not
entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on the claim he asserts in the
motion and amended motion to vacate. Therefore, the motions will be denied
without a hearing. See Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 240 (8th Cir. 1995).
Additionally, the Court finds that Haddock has not made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, no certificate of appealability will be
issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
841(c).” Section 4B1.2(b) defines a controlled substance offense as “an offense under
federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that
prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled
substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a
counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.”
2
An order consistent with this Memorandum will be entered separately.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 13th day of July, 2017.
3
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?