Bateman v. USA

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Donald Batemans amended motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence is DENIED. ECF No. 8 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court will not issue a Certi ficate of Appealability as Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 6 A separate Judgment shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 5/28/20. (KJS)

Case: 4:16-cv-01771-AGF Doc. #: 17 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 60

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DONALD BATEMAN,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-1771 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Movant Donald Bateman’s amended motion
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. ECF No. 8. In
his § 2255 motion, Movant makes two claims: (1) that he was unconstitutionally
sentenced as a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines
(“U.S.S.G.”) based upon the principles in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551
(2015); and (2) that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his
classification as a career offender. For the reasons set forth below, Movant’s motion will
be denied.
I.

Background

On May 22, 2015, Movant pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute heroin and
being a felon in possession of a firearm. See United States v. Bateman, 4:14-cr-00347AGF; Crim. ECF No. 162.1 The United States Probation Office subsequently issued an

1

Filings in the criminal case, United States v. Bateman, 4:14-cr-00347-AGF, will be
referenced as “Crim. ECF.”

Case: 4:16-cv-01771-AGF Doc. #: 17 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #: 61

amended Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) that determined Movant was a career
offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a), due to his prior crimes of violence (specifically, his
Missouri convictions for burglary in the first degree and assault in the second degree).
Crim. ECF No. 285 at 13. With a total offense level of 29 and a criminal history category
of VI, the advisory sentencing guideline range was 151 to 188 months. Id. at 28.
Defense counsel did not object to the Probation Office’s determination that Movant
qualified as a career offender or to the sentencing guideline calculations. On November
17, 2015, the Court sentenced Movant to a below-guideline sentence of 90 months in
prison. Crim. ECF No. 290. Movant did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
II.

Standard of Review

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner may seek relief from a sentence
on the ground that “the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or
that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise
subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). To warrant relief under § 2255, the
errors of which the movant complains must amount to a fundamental miscarriage of
justice. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346 (1974).
III.

Discussion
1. Movant’s Classification as a Career Offender

Movant argues that he is entitled to relief under § 2255 because, under the
principles in Johnson, he no longer qualifies as a career offender under the Sentencing
Guidelines. In Johnson, the Supreme Court found that the Armed Career Criminal Act’s

2

Case: 4:16-cv-01771-AGF Doc. #: 17 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #: 62

(“ACCA”) residual clause—which defines a “violent felony” to include any felony that
“involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another”—
was unconstitutionally vague. 135 S. Ct. at 2563. When Movant was sentenced, the
Guidelines had an identical residual clause in the definition of a “crime of violence.”
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). Movant claims that his Missouri burglary conviction fell within
the scope of the Guidelines’ residual clause, which he asserts is now unconstitutionally
vague under Johnson. Movant thus argues that his burglary conviction should not have
been recognized as a crime of violence and that, as a result, he was unconstitutionally
sentenced as a career offender.
Movant’s argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles v.
United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017).2 In Beckles, the Supreme Court addressed whether
a career offender could assert the holding of Johnson to challenge the vagueness of the
residual clause in the Guidelines’ definition of a crime of violence. The Supreme Court
determined that the advisory sentencing guidelines were not subject to vagueness
challenges, holding that:
Unlike the ACCA . . . the advisory Guidelines do not fix the permissible
range of sentences. To the contrary, they merely guide the exercise of a
court’s discretion in choosing an appropriate sentence within the statutory
range. Accordingly, the Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge
under the Due Process Clause. The residual clause in § 4B1.2(a)(2) therefore
is not void for vagueness.
2

Movant filed his § 2255 motion prior to the decision in Beckles, and counsel was
appointed to represent him. At Movant’s request, the proceedings were stayed pending a
ruling in Beckles. Following the ruling, appointed counsel advised that counsel would no
longer advance the argument under Johnson, but that Movant did not authorize counsel to
dismiss the petition. ECF No. 13. The matter having been briefed, the Court thereafter
granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. ECF No. 15.

3

Case: 4:16-cv-01771-AGF Doc. #: 17 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #: 63

Id. at 892.
Because the Supreme Court has directly rejected Movant’s argument, his
challenge to his career offender status cannot stand as a ground for relief. See, e.g.,
Beasley v. United States, No. 1:16CV217 RLW, 2019 WL 3083341, at *2 (E.D. Mo. July
15, 2019) (denying movant’s § 2255 because “Beckles has rejected the argument that the
holding in Johnson was applicable to the residual clause of the U.S.S.G.”); Rollins v.
United States, No. 4:16CV599JCH, 2018 WL 3631233, at *2 (E.D. Mo. July 31, 2018)
(same); Evans v. United States, No. 4:16 CV 1009 RWS, 2018 WL 2267904, at *2 (E.D.
Mo. May 17, 2018) (same). As a result, Movant’s claim will be denied.
2. Ineffective-Assistance-of-Counsel Claim
Movant next argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his
attorney failed to object to his classification as a career offender based on his assertion
that the Guidelines’ residual clause was unconstitutionally vague. Typically, a movant’s
ineffective assistance of counsel claim is properly raised under § 2255 rather than on
direct appeal. United States v. Davis, 452 F.3d 991, 994 (8th Cir. 2006). In order to
prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-claim, a movant must meet the two-prong
test established by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 687, 690, 694 (1984): (1) he must
show that counsel’s performance was so deficient that, “in light of all the circumstances,
the identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent
assistance,” and (2) he must show “that the deficient performance prejudiced the
defense,” in the sense that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

4

Case: 4:16-cv-01771-AGF Doc. #: 17 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #: 64

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Consequently, counsel is not ineffective for failing to file a motion or make an objection
that would have been unsuccessful because the movant was not actually prejudiced. See
United States v. Johnson, 707 F.2d 317, 323 (8th Cir. 1983).
Movant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim also fails because, even if
defense counsel raised an objection to the vagueness of the Guidelines’ residual clause
under the principles set forth in Johnson, it would have been unsuccessful; the advisory
Guidelines are not subject to a Due Process vagueness challenge. See Beckles, 137 S. Ct.
at 892. As a result, Movant cannot establish that he suffered any prejudice, and his
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim must be denied.
Because the motion and the record conclusively show that Movant is not entitled
to relief, no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Anjulo-Lopez v. United States, 541 F.3d
814, 817 (8th Cir. 2008); Watson v. United Sates, 493 F.3d 960, 963 (8th Cir. 2007).
IV.

Conclusion

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Donald Bateman’s amended motion filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence is DENIED. ECF No. 8.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court will not issue a Certificate of
Appealability as Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal
constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

5

Case: 4:16-cv-01771-AGF Doc. #: 17 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #: 65

A separate Judgment shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.

Dated this 28th day of May, 2020.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6