USA v. George Darden, No. 14-5537 (6th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0487n.06 Case No. 14-5537 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEORGE DARDEN, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Jul 06, 2015 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY ORDER BEFORE: SUTTON and DONALD, Circuit Judges; ZOUHARY, District Judge.* PER CURIAM. George Darden received a career offender enhancement under United States Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1. At issue is whether one of Darden’s previous convictions qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2). See Appellee’s Br. 7. In Johnson v. United States, No. 13-7120 (U.S. June 26, 2015) (slip op. at 10, 15), the Supreme Court held that the identically worded residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is void for vagueness. Compare U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) with 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). We have previously interpreted both residual clauses identically, see United States v. Ford, 560 F.3d 420, 421 (6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Houston, 187 F.3d 593, 594–95 (6th Cir. * The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Case No. 14-5537, United States v. Darden 1999), and Darden deserves the same relief as Johnson: the vacating of his sentence. Indeed, after Johnson, the Supreme Court vacated the sentences of offenders who were sentenced under the Guidelines’ residual clause. United States v. Maldonado, 581 F. App’x 19, 22–23 (2d Cir. 2014), vacated, 576 U.S. __ (2015); Beckles v. United States, 579 F. App’x 833, 833–34 (11th Cir. 2014), vacated, 576 U.S. __ (2015). The same relief is appropriate here. For these reasons, we vacate the judgment and remand for reconsideration in light of Johnson v. United States. 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.