United States
v.
Jones

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond DivisionMay 11, 2017
Criminal No. 3:07CR112-HEH (E.D. Va. May. 11, 2017)

Criminal No. 3:07CR112-HEH

05-11-2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARIO CHRISTOPHER JONES, Petitioner.


MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion)

Petitioner, a federal inmate proceeding with counsel, submitted this motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Petitioner asserted that, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), his enhanced sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("USSG") as a career offender is unconstitutional. "Recently, the Supreme Court concluded that the Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause. . . . Johnson's vagueness holding does not apply to the residual clause in [USSG] § 4B1.2(a)(2)." United States v. Lee, No. 15-6099, --- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 1476145, at *2 (4th Cir. Apr. 25, 2017) (citation omitted). Thus, Petitioner's claim lacks merit. Accordingly, the Government's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 41) will be granted. The § 2255 Motion (ECF No. 35) will be denied. The action will be dismissed, and the Court will deny a certificate of appealability.

As the Supreme Court has noted,

[u]nder the Armed Career Criminal Act ["ACCA"] of 1984, a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm faces more severe punishment if he has three or more previous convictions for a "violent felony," a term defined to include any felony that "involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another."


An appropriate Order shall issue.

/s/_________


HENRY E. HUDSON


UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: May 11, 2017
Richmond, Virginia

Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2555 (emphasis added) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)). This part of the definition of violent felony "ha[s] come to be known as the Act's residual clause." Id. The Johnson Court held "that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the [ACCA] violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process." Id. at 2563.