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.

Haynes v. United States

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

June 18, 2019

BRENT HAYNES, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          ORDER DENYING § 2255 PETITION, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is the pro se motion of Petitioner, Brent Haynes, to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (“the Petition”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1.) For the following reasons, the Petition is DENIED.

         In 2012, Haynes pleaded guilty to carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (carjacking), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and being a fugitive in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). (United States v. Haynes, No. 1:12-cr-10030-JDB-1, D.E. 47.) The Court imposed a sentence of 117 months' incarceration and two years of supervised release. (Id. at D.E. 55.) Haynes did not take a direct appeal. He filed his Petition in May 2016, seeking to have his firearm conviction and sentence vacated.

         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) (internal quotation marks omitted). The petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to relief. Pough v. United States, 442 F.3d 959, 964 (6th Cir. 2006).

         Haynes asserts that the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), renders unconstitutional his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), for possession of a firearm during and in relation to a “crime of violence.” He insists that the definition of “crime of violence” under the statute's residual clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), is unconstitutionally vague, and that carjacking is not categorically such a crime under the statute's elements clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), because it can be committed by intimidation. (D.E. 1 at PageID 2-6.)

         On July 5, 2018, he filed a motion to supplement his Petition, arguing that the recent decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018), further supports his claim. (D.E. 7 at PageID 16-18.) The Court allowed Petitioner to supplement the Petition with his Dimaya argument and ordered Respondent, United States of America, to respond to the Petition, as supplemented. (D.E. 8 at PageID 21.) On February 13, 2019, the Government filed its response, arguing that the Petition's sole claim is without merit.[1] (D.E. 12.) The Court agrees.

         “The federal carjacking statute provides that a person is guilty of carjacking when, ‘with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm,' a person ‘takes a motor vehicle ... from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation.'” United States v. Jackson, 918 F.3d 467, 484 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 2119). The firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), provides in pertinent part that,

[e]xcept to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime-
(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;
(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and
(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)-(iii) (emphasis added).

         Section 924(c)(3) sets forth a “two-part definition” of crime of violence, “only one part of which need apply.” United States v. Robinson, 708 Fed.Appx. 272, 273 (6th Cir. 2017). “First, a crime of violence is a felony that ‘has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.'” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)). This is known as the “elements clause.” Jackson, 918 F.3d at 485. “Second, a crime of violence is a felony ‘that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.'” Robinson, 708 Fed.Appx. at 273 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)). This language is referred to as the statute's “residual clause.” United States v. Camp, 903 F.3d 594, 597 n.2 (6th Cir. 2018).

         The Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), contains similarly worded clauses. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). In Johnson, the United States Supreme Court held that the ACCA's residual clause is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2557. Therefore, an enhanced sentence under that clause violates due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 2556-57. Subsequently, in Dimaya, the Court held that the “residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) . . . is unconstitutionally vague as incorporated into ...


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.