Hart v. United States of America

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING RELIEF UNDER JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO RESPOND TO REMAINING CLAIMS. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 4/18/18. (mbm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
COREY HART,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 1:15-cv-01163-JDB-egb
No. 1:13-cr-10071-JDB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER DENYING RELIEF UNDER JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
AND
DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO RESPOND TO REMAINING CLAIMS
In July 2015, Petitioner, Corey Hart, filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Petition”). (Case Number (“No.”) 15-cv-01163, Docket
Entry (“D.E.”) 1.) The Petition sets forth two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id. at
PageID 4.) Appointed counsel thereafter filed a supplemental motion to add a claim under
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). (Id., D.E. 8.) For the reasons that follow, the
Johnson claim is DENIED, and Respondent, United States of America, is DIRECTED to
respond to the remaining claims.
BACKGROUND
Hart was indicted in July 2013 on two counts of distributing and attempting to distribute
a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. (No. 13-cr10071, D.E. 2.) The first count was subsequently dismissed, (id., D.E. 20), and Defendant
entered an open plea of guilty to the second count, (id., D.E. 30).
Defendant was determined to be subject to an enhanced sentence as a career offender
under § 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.” or “Guidelines”), based

on four Tennessee convictions: attempted aggravated assault, sale of methamphetamine,
possession of methamphetamine with intent to resale or deliver, and aggravated assault.
(Presentence Report ¶¶ 18, 36-39.) The Court sentenced him to 151 months’ imprisonment and
three years of supervised release. (No. 13-cr-10071, D.E. 42.) An unsuccessful direct appeal
was taken. (Id., D.E. 52.)
On July 10, 2015, Petitioner filed his federal Petition, (No. 15-cv-01163, D.E. 1), which,
as noted, was later supplemented with a claim under Johnson, (id., D.E. 8).
DISCUSSION
A prisoner seeking to vacate his sentence under § 2255 “must allege either: ‘(1) an error
of constitutional magnitude; (2) a sentence imposed outside the statutory limits; or (3) an error of
fact or law that was so fundamental as to render the entire proceeding invalid.’” Short v. United
States, 471 F.3d 686, 691 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mallett v. United States, 334 F.3d 491, 496-97
(6th Cir. 2003)).
The inmate challenges his sentence based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Johnson that
the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), is
unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

See Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2557.

He argues that

Johnson’s reasoning renders unconstitutional his designation as a career offender under § 4B1.1
of the Guidelines.
The argument fails. On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court refused to extend Johnson’s
reasoning to the Guidelines’ career offender provisions. See Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct.
886, 892 (2017). The Court explained that, “[u]nlike the ACCA, . . . the advisory Guidelines do
not fix the permissible range of sentences.” Id. “[T]he Guidelines,” therefore, “are not subject to
a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause.” Id.

2

Petitioner’s request for relief under Johnson is DENIED.
Respondent is ORDERED to file a response to the remaining claims within twenty-eight
days from the date of this order. See Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United
States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), Rule 5(a).
Hart may, if he chooses, submit a reply to Respondent’s answer or response within
twenty-eight days of service. See Habeas Rule 5(d). He may request an extension of time to
reply by filing a motion on or before the due date of his reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of April 2018.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3