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.

Jackson v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

October 31, 2017

JARED JACKSON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          ORDER

          SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court are two motions filed by Petitioner Jared Jackson: (1) a pro se motion seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the "§ 2255 Motion"), filed on June 26, 2016 (ECF No. 1), and (2) a pro se motion for leave to file an amended motion seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the "Motion to Amend § 2255") . (ECF No. 5; see also ECF No. 5-1; ECF No. 5-2.) Jackson challenges his sentence in Case No. 2:06-20475. The Government responded on October 13, 2017. (ECF No. 9.)

         For the following reasons, the § 2255 Motion is DENIED, and the Motion to Amend § 2255 is DENIED AS FUTILE.

         I. Background

         On January 5, 2009, Petitioner pled guilty to three counts: (1) illegal possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922; (2) Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and (3) use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Cr. ECF No. 71 at 61; Cr. ECF No. 62 at 51-53.J[1] At Petitioner's sentencing on March 22, 2010, the Court determined that he was an Armed Career Criminal pursuant to § 4B1.4 of the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines and a Career Offender pursuant to § 4B1.1 of the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines. (Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") ¶ 18.) Petitioner's criminal record included five Tennessee convictions for aggravated robbery. (Id. at ¶¶ 24, 26-29.) Petitioner's advisory guideline range was 262 to 327 months. (Id. at ¶ 59.) He was sentenced to the statutory minimum of 180 months for the Hobbs Act robbery and felon in possession convictions, to run concurrently, and to the statutory minimum of 84 months for the § 924(c) conviction, to run consecutively, for a total of 264 months in prison. (Cr. ECF No. 89 at 81.)

         On June 28, 2016, Petitioner filed this § 2255 Motion. (ECF No. 1.) On August 12, 2016, Petitioner filed the Motion to Amend § 2255. (ECF No. 5; see also ECF No. 5-1; ECF No. 5-2.) Petitioner argues that he is entitled to resentencing under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). (ECF No. 1 at 3.) He contends that, after Johnson, his conviction for using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence "violates due process of law." (Id.) He also argues that Hobbs Act Robbery is not a "crime of violence." (Id.) Petitioner asks the Court to "vacate his conviction." (Id.)

         II. Analysis

         Petitioner makes two arguments. First, he argues that, "in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Johnson v. United States . . . Petitioner's 924(c) conviction categorically fails to qualify as a 'crime of violence.'" (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Petitioner argues that, because "[t]he §924(c) residual clause is materially indistinguishabl[e] from the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) clause, " "§924(c)'s residual clause is likewise unconstitutionally vague." (Id. at 2-3.) Second, Petitioner argues that his conviction for Hobbs Act Robbery "categorically fails to qualify as a 'crime of violence' under the remaining §924(c) force clause." (Id. at 3.)

         Petitioner's first argument has been rejected by the Sixth Circuit. In United States v. Taylor, the court held that, "[b]ecause § 924(c)(3)(B) is considerably narrower than the statute invalidated by the Court in Johnson, and because much of Johnson's analysis does not apply to § 924(c)(3)(B), " the definition of "crime of violence" in § 924(c) (3) (B) is not unconstitutionally vague. 814 F.3d 340, 375-76 (6th Cir. 2016) .

         Petitioner's second argument has also been rejected by the Sixth Circuit. In United States v. Gooch, the court held "that Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence." 850 F.3d 285, 292 (6th Cir. 2017). Petitioner's § 2255 Motion is DENIED.

         Petitioner's Motion to Amend § 2255 seeks relief on the same grounds as his § 2255 Motion. Petitioner argues again that, because "Section 924(c)(3)(B)'s definition of 'crime of violence' is substantially similar to the ACCA residual clause's definition of 'violent felony, '" which was struck down in Johnson, his Hobbs Act robbery conviction "is not a qualifying predicate offense for 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) purposes." (ECF No. 5-2 at 30, 33.) Petitioner also argues that Hobbs Act Robbery "does not qualify as a 'crime of violence' under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)." (Id. at 33.) As discussed above, those arguments have been rejected by the Sixth Circuit. Petitioner's Motion to Amend § 2255 is DENIED AS FUTILE.

         III. Appealability

         28 U.S.C. § 2253(a) requires a district court to evaluate the appealability of its decision denying a § 2255 motion and to issue a certificate of appealability ("COA") "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). No § 2255 movant may appeal without this certificate.

         The COA must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the required showing. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253(c) (2) & (3) . A "substantial showing" is made when the movant demonstrates that "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Henley v. Bell, 308 Fed.Appx. 989, 990 (6th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). A COA does not require a showing that the appeal will succeed. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 337; Caldwell v. ...


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.