Fields v. USA

Filing 2

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 40 be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's consecutive sentence of 84 months imprisonment for count two, use of a firearm during and in relation to "a crime of violence" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1)(A) 33 be, and the same hereby is, VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner� 39;s consecutive sentence of 51 months imprisonment and supervised release term of 5 years for count one, aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery 33 be, and the same hereby is, REINSTATED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/29/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Case 2:16-cr-00363-JCM-GWFDocument 2 42 Filed 07/29/20 Page 13of 3
Case 2:20-cv-01063-JCM
Document Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:16-CR-363 JCM (GWF)
ORDER

v.
NOAH PATRICK FIELDS,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is petitioner Noah Patrick Fields’ motion to vacate, amend, or

14

correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 40). The government filed no

15
16

response, and the time to do so has passed.
I.

Background
Petitioner is currently incarcerated in Victorville USP. (ECF No. 40). On May 15, 2017,

17

petitioner pled guilty to 1) aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery (“count one”), and 2) use of a

18

firearm during and in relation to “a crime of violence,” specifically the aiding and abetting

19

Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (“count two”). (ECF Nos. 26, 28,

20

29).

21

On August 24, 2017, this court sentenced petitioner to 51 months of imprisonment on

22

count one and a consecutive sentence of 84 months imprisonment on count two. (ECF Nos. 31,

23

33). Petitioner was also sentenced to a 5-year term of supervised release. (Id.).
In light of the intervening change in law of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019)

24
25

(“Davis”), petitioner seeks the vacatur of his § 924(c) conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
II.

26

Legal Standard
Federal prisoners “may move . . . to vacate, set aside or correct [their] sentence” if the

27

court imposed the sentence “in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 28

28

U.S.C. § 2255(a). Relief pursuant to § 2255 should be granted only where “a fundamental

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Case 2:16-cr-00363-JCM-GWFDocument 2 42 Filed 07/29/20 Page 23of 3
Case 2:20-cv-01063-JCM
Document Filed 07/29/20 Page 2 of

1

defect” caused “a complete miscarriage of justice.” Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 345

2

(1974); see also Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962).

3

Limitations on § 2255 motions exist because the movant “already has had a fair

4

opportunity to present his federal claims to a federal forum,” whether or not he took advantage of

5
6
7

the opportunity. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 164 (1982). Section 2255 “is not
designed to provide criminal defendants multiple opportunities to challenge their sentence.”
United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, a petitioner’s claims
are procedurally barred if they could have been raised on direct appeal are not. Massaro v.

8

United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003); Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998).

9

However, procedural default is excused if the defendant can show cause and prejudice, or actual

10

innocence. Id.

11

III.

Discussion

12

This court grants petitioner’s timely motion. Per the local rules, “[t]he failure of an

13

opposing party to include points and authorities in response to any motion constitutes a consent

14
15

to granting the motion.” LCR 47-3. On June 24, 2020, this court set a scheduling order with a
response deadline of July 15, 2020. (ECF No. 41). The government has not responded.
Furthermore, this court has reviewed the record in this matter and finds petitioner’s

16

motion meritorious. On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court held in Davis that § 924(c)’s residual

17

clause is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause. 139 S. Ct. 2319

18

(2019). In light of Davis, the crime of “aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery”—as charged in

19

count one—categorically fails to qualify as a “crime of violence.” Thus, petitioner’s conviction

20

under count two cannot be sustained due to the fundamental defect uncovered by the foregoing

21

substantive change in law. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 345 (1974) (ruling that

22

relief pursuant to § 2255 should be granted only where “a fundamental defect” caused “a

23
24
25

complete miscarriage of justice”); see also Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (applying
decisions retroactively to cases on collateral review if “substantive”).
Without a hearing, this court vacates petitioner’s conviction of 84 months imprisonment
for count two and reimposes the same prior sentence of 51 months of imprisonment for count

26

one along with a supervised release term of 5 years.

27

...

28

...

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

Case 2:16-cr-00363-JCM-GWFDocument 2 42 Filed 07/29/20 Page 33of 3
Case 2:20-cv-01063-JCM
Document Filed 07/29/20 Page 3 of

1

IV.

Conclusion

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that petitioner’s motion to

4

vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 40) be, and the

5
6
7

same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s consecutive sentence of 84 months
imprisonment for count two—use of a firearm during and in relation to “a crime of violence” in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)—(ECF No. 33) be, and the same hereby is, VACATED.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s consecutive sentence of 51 months

9

imprisonment and supervised release term of 5 years for count one—aiding and abetting Hobbs

10
11
12
13

Act robbery—(ECF No. 33) be, and the same hereby is, REINSTATED.
DATED July 29, 2020.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-