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.

United States v. Walker

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 23, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs,
v.
DESHAWN WALKER, Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is petitioner Deshawn Walker's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 183). The government has not filed a response, and the time for doing so has since passed.

         Also before the court is petitioner's request for status regarding his motion to vacate. (ECF No. 185).

         I. Facts

         On January 6, 2016, the government brought a superseding indictment charging the petitioner with: 1) conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery; 2) armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d); and 3) use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (“use of a firearm”). (ECF No. 85). On March 1, 2016, petitioner pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)[1] and use of a firearm.

         On June 1, 2016, the court sentenced petitioner to 12 months for armed bank robbery and 84 months for use of a firearm to run consecutively for a total of 96 months.[2] Petitioner did not appeal his sentence.

         In the instant motion, petitioner moves to vacate pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (“Johnson”). (ECF No. 183).

         II. Legal Standard

         Federal prisoners “may move . . . to vacate, set aside or correct [their] sentence” if the court imposed the sentence “in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Relief pursuant to § 2255 should be granted only where “a fundamental defect” caused “a complete miscarriage of justice.” Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 345 (1974); see also Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962).

         Limitations on § 2255 motions are based on the fact that the movant “already has had a fair opportunity to present his federal claims to a federal forum, ” whether or not he took advantage of the opportunity. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 164 (1982). Section 2255 “is not designed to provide criminal defendants multiple opportunities to challenge their sentence.” United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1993).

         III. Discussion

         In the instant motion, petitioner requests that the court vacate his conviction under § 924 pursuant to Johnson. (ECF No. 183). In particular, petitioner argues that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process. Id.

         In Johnson, the United States Supreme Court held the residual clause in the definition of a “violent felony” in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) (“ACCA”), to be unconstitutionally vague. 135 S.Ct. at 2557. The ACCA defines “violent felony” as any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that:

(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or
(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of ...

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.