YEAGER v. USA

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255). The Clerk of Courts is directed to transfer this matter, along with the corresponding criminal matter at CR 7-25, to Judge Cercone for further proceedings in accordance with his June 1, 2016 Order. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 6/10/16. (ask)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES

)
)
)

v.

CR 7-25
CV 16-44

CHARLES YEAGER

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On July 21, 2008, Defendant was convicted of one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Subsequently, in December 2008, Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 216
months, followed by a term of supervised release. The sentence rested, in part, on Defendant’s
career offender status under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924.
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Relief is available under Section 2255 only under exceptional circumstances, when the
claimed errors of law are "a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete
miscarriage of justice," or "an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair
procedure." Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428, 82 S. Ct. 468, 7 L. Ed. 2d 417 (1962). A
district court need not hold an evidentiary hearing on a Section 2255 motion if the motion, files,
and records show conclusively that the defendant is not entitled to relief. United States v. Ritter,
93 Fed. Appx. 402 (3d Cir. 2004). In this case, a hearing is unnecessary, and the Motion will be
disposed of on the record.
At a December 11, 2008 sentencing hearing, Judge McLaughlin sentenced Defendant as a
career offender based on three predicate convictions, including one for terroristic threats. On
February 19, 2016, Defendant filed a Section 2255 Motion, contending, inter alia, that the

1

terroristic threats conviction could only have qualified as a violent felony under ACCA’s
residual clause, and thus is no longer valid pursuant to Johnson v. United States, __ U.S.__, 135
S. Ct. 2551, 192 L. Ed. 2d 569 (2015). Following Defendant’s Motion, before being transferred
to my docket, the matter was assigned to Judge Cercone, who established a two-phased briefing
schedule. Phase I would address the predicate offenses actually relied on at sentencing
supported a constitutionally valid sentence, and Phase II would, if necessary, address the
resentencing process. In response, the Government correctly concedes that Defendant’s
conviction for terroristic threats no longer qualifies as a predicate conviction under ACCA.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is granted, and his sentence vacated. The Clerk of Courts is
directed to transfer this matter, along with the corresponding criminal matter at CR 7-25, to
Judge Cercone for further proceedings in accordance with his June 1, 2016 Order.
AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2016, IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Donetta W. Ambrose
________________________________
Donetta W. Ambrose
Senior Judge, U.S. District Court

2