Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Beam and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. In the wake of U.S. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), holding that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague, the government has affirmatively waived all defenses to Creighton's motion to vacate his sentence based on theories of waiver or procedural default. Because Davis superseded the precedents on which the district court relied in the matter, the district court's judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2616 ___________________________ Damitrius Creighton, lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant, v. United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: May 17, 2019 Filed: August 14, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Damitrius Creighton pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, see 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court sentenced him to seventy-two months’ imprisonment: twelve months for the robbery conspiracy (after a downward departure under the sentencing guidelines) and sixty months for the firearms offense. Creighton later moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Citing Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), Creighton argued that his conviction under § 924(c) was invalid because the definition of “crime of violence” in § 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied the motion based on Eighth Circuit precedent. See United States v. Prickett, 839 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1976 (2018). Creighton appeals. While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019), that § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. In the wake of Davis, the government has affirmatively waived all defenses to Creighton’s motion based on waiver or procedural default. Because Davis superseded Prickett and undermined the only basis for the district court’s ruling, we vacate the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. ______________________________ -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
