Danner v. USA

Filing 9

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Stay. This action is stayed pending the Fourth Circuit's decision in United States v. Brown. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 5/17/2017. (nvc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:16-cv-98-RLV
(5:00-cr-15-RLV-2)
JEREMY RAY DANNER,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Petitioner’s unopposed motion to hold this
action in abeyance. (Doc. 8.) Petitioner is represented by the Federal Defenders of Western
North Carolina. According to Petitioner’s motion, counsel for the Government does not object to
the request. (Id. at 2.)
On June 14, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging the enhancement of his sentence under the careeroffender guideline in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. Petitioner argues that he no longer qualifies as a careeroffender in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551
(2015). Johnson held that “imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the
Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process” but did not
address the residual clause under the career-offender guideline. Id., 135 S. Ct. at 2563.
On December 15, 2016, the Court granted the Government’s Motion to hold these
proceedings in abeyance pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles v.
United States, No. 15-8544. (Doc. No. 5.) The Supreme Court issued that decision on March 6,
2017, holding that the “the advisory [Sentencing] Guidelines are not subject to vagueness
1

challenges under the Due Process Clause” and that Johnson, therefore, does not apply to
invalidate the residual clause of the career-offender guideline. Id. at 890, 895.
In the wake of the Beckles decision, Petitioner filed a supplemental brief in support of his
Motion to Vacate, in which he argues that Beckles does not resolve his claim for relief because
he was sentenced when the Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory, rather than advisory. (Doc.
No. 6.) The Government has filed a Response to the Motion to Vacate. (Doc. No. 7.) Petitioner
now moves to hold this action in abeyance pending the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States
v. Brown, Case No. 16-7056, in which the defendant argues that his sentence should be vacated
under Johnson because he was classified as a career offender based on the residual clause of the
career-offender guideline when the Guidelines were mandatory. Brown, at Doc. 42.
For the reasons stated by Petitioner, and without objection from counsel for the
Government, the Court concludes the Motion to stay should be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to hold his § 2255 Motion
to Vacate in abeyance (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED, and this action is stayed pending the Fourth
Circuit’s decision in United States v. Brown, No. 16-7056. Thereafter, Petitioner shall have 14
days from the date the Fourth Circuit issues its mandate in Brown to file a reply to the
Government’s Response to the Motion to Vacate.

Signed: May 17, 2017

2