Manigault v. U.S., 3:16CV1590(AWT). (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Connecticut
Number: infdco20190422b14
Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2255 ALVIN W. THOMPSON , District Judge . For the reasons set forth below, the petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 is being denied. The petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief because his 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction was predicated on 18 U.S.C. 1951 Hobbs Act robberies which do not qualify as crimes of violence under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). United States v. Hill
Summary: ORDER RE MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2255 ALVIN W. THOMPSON , District Judge . For the reasons set forth below, the petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 is being denied. The petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief because his 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction was predicated on 18 U.S.C. 1951 Hobbs Act robberies which do not qualify as crimes of violence under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). United States v. Hill,..
More
ORDER RE MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255
ALVIN W. THOMPSON, District Judge.
For the reasons set forth below, the petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is being denied.
The petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief because his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction was predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 1951 Hobbs Act robberies which do not qualify as crimes of violence under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). United States v. Hill, 890 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2018), which was issued after the Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018), holds that a substantive Hobbs Act robbery is a categorical crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). See Hill, 890 F.3d at 53, 58. While the petitioner takes issue with the reasoning in Hill, it is dispositive of his claim.
Accordingly, the petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 1) is hereby DENIED. The court will not issue a certificate of appealability because the petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
The Clerk shall close this case.
It is so ordered.
Source: Leagle
