Poole v. USA
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER granting the Government's 7 Motion to Dismiss and denying and dismissing Petitioner's 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) with prejudice. Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 8/14/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(kby)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00179-MR
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:12-cr-00054-MR-DLH-1
CHAVIS O’NAIR POOLE,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent.
)
)
MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. 1] and the
Government’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7].
BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2012, Petitioner pled guilty in this Court to
possession of a firearm by a felon. [Crim. Case No. 1:12-cr-00054-MR-DLH1 (“CR”), Doc. 16: Acceptance and Entry of Guilty Plea]. The presentence
report (“PSR”) noted that Petitioner had one prior conviction that triggered
an enhancement to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4): a
2009 North Carolina conviction for common law robbery. [CR Doc. 22 at ¶¶
13, 26: PSR]. Based on the § 2K2.1 enhancement, Petitioner faced a
Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months. [Id. at ¶ 60]. On November 26, 2013,
this Court imposed a sentence of 60 months. [CR Doc. 25: Judgment].
Petitioner did not appeal.
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in Johnson v. United States
that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) -- which
covered any offense that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious
potential risk of physical injury to another” -- is “unconstitutionally vague.”
135 S. Ct. 2551, 2557 (2015). Based on that holding, the Court concluded
that “imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause . . . violates
the Constitution’s guarantee of due process.” Id. at 2563.
On June 18, 2016, Petitioner filed the pending motion to vacate,
through the Federal Defender as counsel, raising a Johnson claim. In the
motion to vacate, Petitioner argues that, under Johnson, his prior conviction
for common law robbery no longer qualifies as a predicate for a base-offense
level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a). [Doc. 1 at 3].
On September 2, 2016, the Court placed Petitioner’s motion in
abeyance pending the outcome of Beckles v. United States, Supreme Court
No. 15-8455, in which petitioner argued that his career-offender sentence
was erroneously enhanced by an unconstitutionally vague residual clause of
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. [Doc. 4]. On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court held in
2
Beckles that “the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness
challenges.” 137 S. Ct. 886, 890 (2017). On May 8, 2017, the Government
filed the pending motion to dismiss, arguing that Petitioner’s Johnson
challenge to his enhanced sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a) has no
validity in light of Beckles. [Doc. 7]. On June 23, 2017, the Court granted
the Federal Defender’s motion to withdraw from representation of Petitioner.
[Doc. 9]. In the Court’s order, the Court gave Petitioner twenty days to file a
pro se response to the Government’s motion to dismiss. [Id.]. Petitioner has
not responded and the time to do so has passed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings provides
that courts are to promptly examine motions to vacate, along with “any
attached exhibits and the record of prior proceedings . . .” in order to
determine whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief on the claims set
forth therein. After examining the record in this matter, the Court finds that
the motion to vacate can be resolved without an evidentiary hearing based
on the record and governing case law. See Raines v. United States, 423
F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970).
3
DISCUSSION
As noted, Petitioner challenges his enhanced sentence under U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(a), in light of Johnson. In Beckles, however, the Supreme Court
held that “the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges.”
137 S. Ct. 886, 890 (2017). Thus, the holding in Beckles has foreclosed
Petitioner’s Johnson claim, and the Court will therefore deny and dismiss the
petition and grant the Government’s motion to dismiss.
The Court finds that the Petitioner has not made a substantial showing
of a denial of a constitutional right. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);
see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (in order to satisfy
§ 2253(c), a “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find
the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or
wrong”) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)). Petitioner
has failed to demonstrate both that this Court’s dispositive procedural rulings
are debatable, and that the Motion to Vacate states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85
(2000). As a result, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United
States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
4
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 7] is GRANTED, and Petitioner’s Section 2255 Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence [Doc. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 14, 2017
5
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?