Filed: Jul. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM CAROL E. JACKSON , District Judge . Before the Court is the motion of Steve Winters to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. The United States has filed a response, and the issues are fully briefed. I. Background After pleading guilty to two counts of distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), the Court sentenced Winters to concurrent 120-month terms of imprisonment. At sentencing, the Court dete
Summary: MEMORANDUM CAROL E. JACKSON , District Judge . Before the Court is the motion of Steve Winters to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. The United States has filed a response, and the issues are fully briefed. I. Background After pleading guilty to two counts of distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), the Court sentenced Winters to concurrent 120-month terms of imprisonment. At sentencing, the Court deter..
More
MEMORANDUM
CAROL E. JACKSON, District Judge.
Before the Court is the motion of Steve Winters to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States has filed a response, and the issues are fully briefed.
I. Background
After pleading guilty to two counts of distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), the Court sentenced Winters to concurrent 120-month terms of imprisonment. At sentencing, the Court determined that Winters was a "career offender" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a),1 Winters was designated as a career offender because he had at least two prior felony convictions for a "crime of violence" or controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) and (b), respectively.2
II. Discussion
Winters argues that the Court should vacate his sentence because his enhancement as a career offender is invalid in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), was void for vagueness.
In Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017), the Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a void-for-vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause, and more specifically, that the "crime of violence" clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) is not void for vagueness. Because Winters' sentencing enhancement was imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines, not under the residual clause of the ACCA, he is not entitled to relief under Johnson.
* * *
For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that Winters is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on the claim he asserts in the motion to vacate. Therefore, the motion will be denied without a hearing. See Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 240 (8th Cir. 1995). Additionally, the Court finds that Winters has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, no certificate of appealability will be issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
An order consistent with this Memorandum will be entered separately.
