U.S. v. Fox, Civ 16-0594 JB/SMV (2016)
Court: District Court, D. New Mexico
Number: infdco20160915b12
Visitors: 28
Filed: Sep. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 12, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CORRECT SENTENCE UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2255 JAMES O. BROWNING , District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, filed June 16, 2016 (CIV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 159)("Motion"). 1 In his Motion, Defendant Dionysius Spencer Fox asserts that he was unconstitutionally sentenced under the residual clause of the Armed Criminal Career Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)("ACCA"
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CORRECT SENTENCE UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2255 JAMES O. BROWNING , District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, filed June 16, 2016 (CIV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 159)("Motion"). 1 In his Motion, Defendant Dionysius Spencer Fox asserts that he was unconstitutionally sentenced under the residual clause of the Armed Criminal Career Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)("ACCA")..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CORRECT SENTENCE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255
JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed June 16, 2016 (CIV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 159)("Motion").1 In his Motion, Defendant Dionysius Spencer Fox asserts that he was unconstitutionally sentenced under the residual clause of the Armed Criminal Career Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)("ACCA"), which the Supreme Court of the United States, in Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), held was unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiff United States of America responded on July 7, 2016. (CIV Doc. 6; CR Doc. 162). The Plaintiff agrees that Fox "is entitled to resentencing because, under current law, he no longer has three qualifying convictions supporting an enhanced statutory sentence under the ACCA." (CIV Doc. 6, at 1; CR Doc. 162, at 1). Having considered the record in this and Fox's underlying criminal case, the Court concludes that he is entitled to resentencing based on Johnson v. United States.
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (CIV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 159) is granted, and the Defendant's sentence is vacated. The case will be set for resentencing in a forthcoming Order.
FootNotes
1. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the Defendant authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion in this Court to raise a claim based on Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). See Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granting authorization to file second or successive § 2255 motion as to Dionysius Spencer Fox, filed May 13, 2016 (CR Doc. 157).
Source: Leagle
