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.

Davis v. United States

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

June 11, 2019

JOHNNIE DAVIS, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          ORDER

          SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Movant Johnnie Davis' June 17, 2016 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 1.) The United States of America (the “Government”) responded on February 16, 2017. (ECF No. 8.) Davis replied on March 6, 2017. (ECF No. 9.)

         For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Davis' motion and DENIES a certificate of appealability (“COA”).

         I. Background

         In January 2008, Davis pled guilty to two counts of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (No. 2:07-cr-20040, ECF No. 105.) The Court sentenced Davis to 35 years in prison. (Id., ECF No. 139.) The Sixth Circuit vacated that sentence and remanded for resentencing. See United States v. Davis, 365 Fed.Appx. 615, 616 (6th Cir. 2010). On remand, the Court again sentenced Davis to 35 years in prison. (No. 2:07-cr-20040, ECF No. 302.) The Sixth Circuit affirmed that sentence in June 2012. See United States v. Davis, 485 Fed.Appx. 762, 762 (6th Cir. 2012).

         Davis filed the instant motion on June 17, 2016. He contends his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) are unlawful for two reasons: (1) under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) cannot support his convictions.

         II. Analysis

         Neither of Davis' arguments is well-taken.[1] The Sixth Circuit has held that Johnson does not invalidate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B). Even if Johnson invalidated § 924(c)(3)(B), § 924(c)(3)(A) independently supports Davis' convictions.

         Eighteen U.S.C. § 924(c) imposes mandatory minimum sentences for anyone who uses or carries a firearm during or in relation to a “crime of violence.” The statute defines “crime of violence” as:

[A]n offense that is a felony and--
(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(B) that by its nature, involves substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). Davis pled guilty to using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to two crimes of violence: robbery of a credit union, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).

         In United States v. Taylor, the Sixth Circuit rejected the Johnson-based vagueness challenge to § 924(c)(3)(B) that Davis makes. 814 F.3d 340, 375 (6th Cir. 2016). Although Taylor's future is uncertain, Taylor is binding on the Court. See United States v. Richardson, 906 F.3d 417, 425 (6th Cir. 2018) (“[Taylor] forecloses Richardson's argument that [§ 924(c)'s] residual clause is unconstitutional. But more recent decisions from this court and the Supreme Court, however, suggest that Taylor stands on uncertain ground. . . . Nevertheless, we ...


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.