United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division
Plaintiff, represented by William David Muhr, United States
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RAYMOND A. JACKSON, District Judge.
Mandell Holland ("Petitioner") has submitted a
Motion pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255
to Vacate Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody ("Â§
2255 Motion"). Having thoroughly reviewed the
Parties' filings in this case, the Court finds this
matter is ripe for judicial determination. For the reasons
set forth below, Petitioner's Â§ 2255 Motion is DENIED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 8, 2011, the United States Attorney's Office
("Respondent") filed a criminal complaint against
Petitioner. ECF No. 1. On November 16, 2011, an Eastern
District of Virginia Grand Jury returned an indictment
charging Petitioner with three counts. ECF No. 9.
March 16, 2012, Petitioner pled guilty to counts eighteen and
nineteen of the indictment. ECF No. 77. Count eighteen
charged Petitioner with interference with commerce by robbery
of a commercial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§
1951. Count nineteen charged Petitioner with possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 924(c)(1)(A). ECF No. 78.
27, 2012, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of sixty-three
months imprisonment on count eighteen and a term of
eighty-four months imprisonment on count nineteen, all to be
served consecutively. ECF No. 129. The sentence was
27, 2016, Petitioner, through counsel, filed the instant
Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2255 ("Â§
2255"). ECF No. 192. Petitioner's Â§ 2255 Motion also
requested that it be held in abeyance, pending a decision
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit regarding whether "Hobbs Act robbery" under
18 U.S.C. Â§ 1951(a) is a crime of violence. Id. On
July 21, 2016, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss
Petitioner's Â§ 2255 Motion. ECF No. 198.
Â§ 2255 Motion, Petitioner argues that his conviction on count
nineteen, under 18 U.S.C. Â§ 924(c), should be vacated in
light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Specifically,
Petitioner argues that the statutory language held
unconstitutionally vague in Johnson is
"materially indistinguishable" from the statutory
language under which he was convicted on count nineteen,
i.e., the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 924(c)(3)(B)
("Â§ 924(c)(3)(B)"). Therefore, according to
Petitioner, Johnson also invalidates Â§ 924(c)(3)(B),
requiring that his conviction on count nineteen be vacated.
Mot. Vacate 1-2, ECF No. 192.
response. Respondent argues that Petitioner is not entitled
to file a motion under Â§ 2255 because the Supreme Court has
not yet recognized Â§ 924(c)(3)(B) as unconstitutionally
vague. According to Respondent, the Johnson holding
does not invalidate Â§ 924(c)(3)(B), leaving Petitioner
without a cognizable right to assert on collateral review.
Mot. Dismiss 1, ECF No. 198.
petitioner in federal custody wishes to collaterally attack
his sentence or conviction, the appropriate motion is a Â§
2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 203 (4th Cir. 2003). Section 2255 of Title 28 of the
United States Code governs post-conviction relief for federal
prisoners. It provides in pertinent part:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established
by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the
ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court
was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the
sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or
is otherwise subject to collateral ...