Reed v. USA

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence filed by Petitioner Jeremy L. Reed motion is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 7/15/16. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
JEREMY L. REED,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-CV-190 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on movant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 Movant requests sentencing relief under Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The motion is denied.
In Johnson, the Court held the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act
(“the ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), to be unconstitutionally vague. The ACCA
enhances the punishment for firearms offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) when the
defendant has at least three prior convictions for a serious drug offense or a “violent
felony.” The term “violent felony” is defined in the ACCA as felony offense that “(1)
has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the
person of another, or (ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves the use of explosives,
or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to
another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(B) (emphasis added). The “otherwise involves” language
1

Movant filed a letter with the Court requesting assistance of counsel to determine
whether he is entitled to sentencing relief. The Court found the interests of justice
required that it be interpreted as a motion to vacate under § 2255.

of the ACCA is the residual clause that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional.
Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2563.
In this case, movant pled guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm,
and the Court sentenced him to ninety months’ imprisonment. Movant’s sentence was
not enhanced under the ACCA because he did not have three qualifying violent felony
convictions. As a result, Johnson has no application to movant’s sentence, and the
motion must be denied.
Finally, movant has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, which requires a demonstration “that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.”
Khaimov v. Crist, 297 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). Thus, the Court
will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to vacate is DENIED, and this
action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Dated this 15th day of July, 2016.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2