U.S. v. Brown, 11-20021-CM-02 (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Kansas
Number: infdco20190306e00
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CARLOS MURGUIA , District Judge . Petitioner Jerome M. Brown filed a Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that the underlying crime on which his conviction was based—Hobbs Act robbery—is no longer considered a crime of violence under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). (Doc. 123.) But on January 15, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Stokeling v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 544, 554-55 (2019). Stokeling resolved the issue against pet
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CARLOS MURGUIA , District Judge . Petitioner Jerome M. Brown filed a Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that the underlying crime on which his conviction was based—Hobbs Act robbery—is no longer considered a crime of violence under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). (Doc. 123.) But on January 15, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Stokeling v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 544, 554-55 (2019). Stokeling resolved the issue against peti..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge.
Petitioner Jerome M. Brown filed a Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that the underlying crime on which his conviction was based—Hobbs Act robbery—is no longer considered a crime of violence under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). (Doc. 123.) But on January 15, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Stokeling v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 544, 554-55 (2019). Stokeling resolved the issue against petitioner.
Petitioner concedes that Stokeling means he is not entitled to relief. (Doc. 156, at 1.) He further concedes that dismissal of his § 2255 motion is warranted. (Id. at 2.) The court therefore dismisses petitioner's § 2555 motion because Stokeling precludes his argument that Hobbs Act robbery is no longer considered a crime of violence. Also, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because no reasonable jurist would find the court's assessment of petitioner's constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that petitioner's Motion to Vacate Sentence (Doc. 123) is dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.
Source: Leagle
