Lewis v. USA
AMENDED ORDER Accepting 14 Amended Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 9/7/2017) (ran)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DARREN G. LEWIS,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
AMENDED ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE,
AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The United States Magistrate Judge made amended findings, conclusions and a
recommendation in this case. Movant has filed an objection. The District Court has made a de novo
review of those portions of the findings, conclusions and recommendation to which Movant objects.
In his objection, Movant argues that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), reset
his statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). The District Court rejects that argument for
the reasons set forth in the amended findings, conclusions and recommendation. Movant’s Section
2255 motion is untimely.
Movant also requests, that if the District Court finds his Section 2255 motion untimely, it stay
these proceedings until the Supreme Court announces its decision in Lynch v. Dimaya, 137 S. Ct. 31
(2016) (granting certiorari).
Movant asserts that Dimaya will decide whether 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause is unconstitutional in light of Johnson. However, Dimaya “does not
involve § 924(c)(3)(B).” Byrd v. United States, No. 16-6286, 2017 WL 3613861, at *2 (6th Cir. May
4, 2017). Rather, “in Dimaya, the narrow issue is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson
applies to the residual clause, not the elements clause, of the ‘crime of violence’ definition in 18
U.S.C. § 16(b).” Bryant v. United States, CV 116-025, 2017 WL 1591884, at *2 (S.D. Ga. May 1,
2017); see also Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110, 1120 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that Section 16(b) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act is unconstitutionally vague), cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 31.
Moreover, even if Dimaya does invalidate Section 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause, that holding
would not impact Movant’s Section 924(c) conviction. That is because his Section 924(c) conviction
is predicated upon a Hobbs Act robbery, which qualifies as a crime of violence under Section
924(c)(3)(A)’s force clause definition, not the residual clause found in Section 924(c)(3)(B). See
Buck v. United States, 847 F.3d 267, 274-75 (5th Cir. 2017); see also Hobbs v. United States, 3:16-CV1139-O, 2017 WL 194291, at * 4 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2017) (“Indeed, the definition of a Hobbs Act
robbery fits under Section 924(c)’s force clause, not its residual clause.”). For these reasons, Dimaya
will not impact these proceedings, and the Court will not stay this case until Dimaya is announced.
See United States v. Johnson, Civil Case No. 16-12322, 2017 WL 3531397 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 17, 2017)
(declining to stay Section 2255 proceedings pending Dimaya because Dimaya had no bearing on the
movant’s conviction under Section 924(c)(3)(A)).
Accordingly, Movant’s objections are OVERRULED and his alternative request for a stay is
DENIED. The District Court ACCEPTS the Amended Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c),
the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the
Magistrate Judge’s Amended Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation filed in this case in support
of its finding that the movant has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s
“assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find
“it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and
“debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000).1
In the event Movant will file a notice of appeal, the court notes that
( X ) the movant will proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
the movant will need to pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in
SO ORDERED this 7th day of September, 2017.
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on December 1,
2009, reads as follows:
(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability
when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may
direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a
certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may
seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A
motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.
(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order
entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues a
certificate of appealability.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?