Johnson v. USA - 2255, No. 8:2016cv01836 - Document 2 (D. Md. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Daniel Anthony Johnson 12/15/17 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/15/2017. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson v. USA - 2255 Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : DANIEL ANTHONY JOHNSON : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 16-1836 Criminal No. DKC 13-0174 : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : MEMORANDUM OPINION On October 17, 2013, Daniel Anthony Johnson, Petitioner, pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. sentenced on December 30, 2014, to 61 months He was imprisonment. During the sentencing hearing, the court found that Petitioner’s prior conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery qualified as a crime of violence Guidelines. under Through 2K2.1(a)(2) counsel, of Petitioner the filed Sentencing a Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that, in light of Johnson “residual v. United clause” in States, the 135 guidelines S.Ct. was 2551 void (2015), for the vagueness, meaning that the prior conviction was improperly classified as a crime of violence under the guidelines. The Supreme Court’s later decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017), held that the advisory sentencing guidelines are not subject to the Johnson analysis. Counsel sent letters to Petitioner, seeking his consent to withdraw the Dockets.Justia.com petition. for When counsel received no response, he filed a motion leave to withdraw, which was granted. The Petition, however, remains pending. Petitioner’s residual clause vagueness. only in claim the is that, sentencing under Johnson, is guidelines the for void As noted by counsel in his motion to withdraw, this argument is foreclosed by the later Supreme Court decision in Beckles. Accordingly, the pending petition is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court is also required to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A certificate of appealability is a “jurisdictional prerequisite” earlier order. United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 659 (4th Cir. 2007). to an appeal from the court’s A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where the court denies petitioner’s motion on its merits, a petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the court’s assessment of the claim debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003). 2 Upon review of the record, the court finds that Petitioner does not satisfy the above standard. Accordingly, the court will decline to issue a certificate of appealability. A separate order will be entered. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 3
]]>
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.
