Hughes v. USA

Filing 32

ORDER denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court again declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 04/29/2020. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ni)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00219-MR
(CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:98-cr-00155-MR-1)

ARANDER MATTHEW HUGHES, JR., )
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Petitioner’s “Motion to
Reconsider Denial of Certificate of Appealability” [Doc. 31].
In June 2016, the Petitioner filed a pro se Motion to Vacate under 28
U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) were
invalid under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). [Doc. 1].
The Court ordered the Federal Defender of Western North Carolina to
supplement the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate.

[Doc. 3].

The Federal

Defender timely filed a supplemental motion on the Petitioner’s behalf. [Doc.
4]. In March 2020, this Court denied the Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, as
supplemented, and denied a certificate of appealability. [Doc. 29].

Case 1:16-cv-00219-MR Document 32 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 3

The Petitioner now moves the Court to reconsider its denial of a
certificate of appealability. [Doc. 31]. For grounds, the Petitioner argues that
this Court failed to address all of the grounds asserted in his pro se Motion
to Vacate, instead addressing only the arguments asserted by the Petitioner
that were also asserted by the Federal Defender. Specifically, the Petitioner
contends that the Federal Defender erroneously failed to supplement his
challenge to his § 924(c) convictions predicated on federal bank robbery and
erroneously conceded that his § 924(c) convictions predicated on
substantive Hobbs Act robbery were valid. [Id.]. This, the Petitioner claims,
“effectively waiv[ed] all the claims raised in [his] pro se motion.” [Id. at 2].
The Petitioner is correct that the Federal Defender did not reassert the
Petitioner’s challenges to some of his § 924(c) convictions. The Federal
Defender did not do so, however, because such arguments were clearly
precluded by established Circuit law. See United States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d
141, 152 (4th Cir. 2016) (holding that both federal bank robbery and federal
armed bank robbery were “crimes of violence” within meaning of § 924(c));
United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that Hobbs
Act robbery qualifies as “crime of violence” under § 924(c)).

As such, the

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that a certificate of appealability is
warranted with respect to these issues.
2

Case 1:16-cv-00219-MR Document 32 Filed 04/29/20 Page 2 of 3

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases,
the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Petitioner has not
made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2); 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); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (holding that when relief
is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the
correctness of the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the
petition states a debatably valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Petitioner’s “Motion to
Reconsider Denial of Certificate of Appealability” [Doc. 31] is DENIED, and
the Court again declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: April 29, 2020

3

Case 1:16-cv-00219-MR Document 32 Filed 04/29/20 Page 3 of 3