Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gabel v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Chattanooga

March 23, 2017

JASON L. GABEL, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          HARRY S. MATTICE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Petitioner's pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Docs. 20, 21]. He bases his request for collateral relief on Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), in which the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), was unconstitutionally vague [Id.]. The United States responded in opposition on July 29, 2016 [Doc. 23]. Also before the Court is Petitioner's pro se request for an Order requiring Respondent provide him with unspecified “documents” so that he can submit and litigate a § 2255 challenge [Doc. 19]. For the reasons below, Petitioner's § 2255 motion will be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Petitioner's request for an Order requiring the production of unspecified documents to assist in the litigation of his § 2255 challenge will be DENIED as moot.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In 2009, Petitioner robbed three hotels and a sandwich shop in Chattanooga, Tennessee, all while armed with a black pistol or a large knife [Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) ¶¶ 9-12]. He later pled guilty to, and was subsequently convicted of, three counts of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and one count of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) [Doc. 18]. On August 19, 2010, this Court sentenced Petitioner to an aggregate 200-month term of imprisonment- concurrent 116-month terms for the Hobbs Act robberies and a consecutive 84-month term for the § 924(c) offense [Id.]. No direct appeal was taken. On June 20, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant motion challenging his conviction under § 924(c) based on the Johnson decision [Docs. 20, 21].[1]

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         To obtain relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Petitioner must demonstrate “(1) an error of constitutional magnitude; (2) a sentence imposed outside the statutory limits; or (3) an error of fact or law . . . 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)). He “must clear a significantly higher hurdle than would exist on direct appeal” and establish a “fundamental defect in the proceedings which necessarily results in a complete miscarriage of justice or an egregious error violative of due process.” Fair v. United States, 157 F.3d 427, 430 (6th Cir. 1998).

         III. ANALYSIS

         Petitioner argues that the Johnson decision invalidated the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B)'s definition of crime of violence and that the absence of that provision requires vacatur of his conviction under § 924(c)(1)(A). The argument fails because binding Sixth Circuit precedent holds that while Johnson invalidated the residual provision of the ACCA, § 924(c)(3)(B)'s definition of crime of violence remains unaffected.[2] See United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340, 376-79 (6th Cir. 2016) (recognizing at least four “significant differences” between the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B) and the ACCA's residual clause and noting “the argument that Johnson effectively invalidated [the former] is . . . without merit”). As such, Hobbs Act robbery remains a crime of violence capable of supporting the conviction under § 924(c)(1)(A).

         IV. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

         In addition to the pro se petition for collateral relief, this Court is in possession of Petitioner's pro se request for a Court Order requiring Respondent provide him with unspecified documents necessary for the litigation of his § 2255 challenge [Doc. 19]. The request is made moot by this Court's resolution of the underlying petition and will be DENIED.

         V. CONCLUSION

         For the reasons discussed, Petitioner's § 2255 motion [Docs. 20, 21] will be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Petitioner's pro se request for the production of unspecified documents [Doc. 19] will be DENIED as moot. The Court will CERTIFY any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. Therefore, this Court will DENY Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Petitioner having failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

         AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.