Lash v. USA

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM - An order consistent with this Memorandum will be entered separately.. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 7/14/17. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY LASH,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-840 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM
Before the Court is the motion of Anthony Lash to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States has not
filed a response.
I. Background
After pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, Lash was sentenced to a 151month term of imprisonment. At sentencing, the Court determined that Lash was a
career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).1 Lash was designated as a career
offender because he had two prior felony convictions for a crime of violence and a
controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) and (b), respectively.2 The
guideline range for imprisonment was 151 to 188 months.

1

Section 4B1.1(a) provides that a defendant is a career offender if (1) he was at least 18
years old when he committed the offense of conviction; (2) the offense of conviction is
either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) he has at least two
prior felony convictions for either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.
2
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. §
841(c).” Section 4B1.2(b) defines a controlled substance offense as “an offense under

II. Discussion
Lash argues that the Court should vacate his sentence because his
enhancement as a career offender 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.

Johnson is inapplicable here because Lash 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 Lash’s sentencing
enhancement was imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines, not under the residual
clause of the ACCA, he is not entitled to relief.
***
For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that Lash is not
entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on the claim he asserts in the
motion to vacate. Therefore, the motion will be denied without a hearing. See
Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 240 (8th Cir. 1995). Additionally, the Court
finds that Lash 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.

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.

Dated this 14th day of July, 2017.

CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3