Glover v. United States of America

Filing 2

ORDER Denying 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) filed as set forth herein. judgment shall be issued forthwith. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 5/8/17. (ml)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Respondent,
v.
ARDIS ANN GLOVER,
Defendant/Movant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Nos.

CIV-16-445-D
CR-14-4-D

ORDER
On January 8, 2014, Defendant was charged with one count of bank robbery,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2113(a). On February 25, 2014, pursuant to a Plea
Agreement, Defendant pled guilty to the Indictment. As part of her plea, Defendant
agreed to, inter alia, waive her right to appeal, collaterally challenge, or move to
modify her sentence and the manner in which the sentence was determined, provided
the sentence was within or below the advisory guideline range. Plea Agreement, ¶ 8
[Doc. No. 22]. Based on her Presentence Investigation Report (PSIR) [Doc. No. 31],
Defendant was determined to be a “career offender” under United States Sentencing
Guideline (USSG) § 4B1.1 in light of her current bank robbery conviction and prior
convictions for (1) assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and (2) bank
robbery. PSIR at 7-9. Defendant’s guideline imprisonment range was 151 months to
188 months. Id. at 17. The Court adopted the PSIR without change, and Defendant

was sentenced to a term of sixty-six (66) months’ imprisonment with two (2) years
of supervised release.
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Mot.”) [Doc. No. 1]. Relying on the
Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 2551,
192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), Defendant challenges the career offender enhancement of
her sentence under the “crimes of violence” provision in USSG § 4B1.1.1 Defendant
contends that Johnson and Welch v. United States, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 194
L.Ed.2d 387 (2016) require the Court to either vacate, set aside or correct her
sentence. The United States moves to dismiss Defendant’s action on the grounds
that, pursuant to the terms of her Plea Agreement, Defendant waived her right to
collaterally attack the sentence. Moreover, the government contends Defendant’s
action has been foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Beckles v.
United States, __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017).
The Court need not address whether Defendant waived her right to collaterally
attack her sentence because it finds Defendant is not entitled to relief in light of
Beckles. In Beckles, the Supreme Court rejected a void-for-vagueness challenge to

1

See Mot. at 4, ¶ 12 (“I was sentenced as a ‘career offender’ under the guidelines
for prior convictions based on ‘crimes of violence.’”). Because Defendant is
proceeding pro se, the Court construes her filings liberally, but will not act as her
advocate in constructing her arguments and searching the record. Garrett v. Selby
Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
2

the residual clause in the Guidelines and held that “the Guidelines are not subject to
vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.” 137 S.Ct. at 892. “Unlike the
[Armed Career Criminal Act],” the Court reasoned, “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.” Id. In light of Beckles, Defendant’s contention that Johnson and
Welch require the Court to revisit her career offender sentence imposed under §
4B1.1 is without merit, and accordingly, denied.
Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. No. 1] is DENIED as set forth herein. A
judgment shall be issued forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of May 2017.

3