Taylor v. USA - 2255, No. 1:2016cv02361 - Document 2 (D. Md. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge James K. Bredar on 12/14/2017. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
Taylor v. USA - 2255 Doc. 2 IN THE UNITE() STATES ()ISTRICT COURT FOR THE ()ISTRICT OF MARYLAND DAVON TAYLOR, * Movant * v. CRIMINAL NO .. /KB-I3-0269 CIVIL NO .• /KB-16-236I * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, * Respondent * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM Pcnding bcfore the Court IS Davon Taylor's motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ~ 2255. (Crim. No. 13-0269. ECF No. 248.) The motion is prcmised upon thc Suprcme Court's ruling in Johnson \'. Uniled Siaies. 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). which held that the residual clause of the Anncd Career Criminal Act ("ACCA ") was void for vagueness. Ill. at 894. Movant asscrts an entitlement to relief because the sentencing court detcrmined Movant was a carecr offender under the advisory sentencing provision with wording guidelines and those guidelincs included a carcer offender identical to the ACCA provision struck down in Johnson unconstitutionally vague. Thc Supremc Coul1's more rcccnt dccision in Beckles I'. as Uniled Siaies. 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017). held that the sentencing guidelines may not bc challengcd as void for vagueness. Ill. at 894. Accordingly. the instant motion is without merit and will be denied by separate order. A certificate of appealability may issue only if the movant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.c. ~ 2253(c)(2). See also Slack \'. McDaniel. 529 U.S. 473. 484 (2000). In order to satisfy ~ 2253( c). a movant must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessmcnt of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. !vliller-EI I'. Cockrell. 537 U.S, 322. 336-38 (2003) (citing Slack. 529 U.S. Dockets.Justia.com at 484). Taylor has failed to make such a showing, and the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. DATED this /1" day of December, 2017. BY THE COURT: o_.w t , James K. Bredar Chief Judge 2 a.t 4 , -'1~ .

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.