Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Speight

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

October 11, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KENNETH SPEIGHT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge

         Kenneth Speight, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted this successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence ("§ 2255 Motion, " ECF No. 16). Speight argues that in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), his convictions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) are unconstitutional. (Id. at 5.)[1] The Government has responded. (ECF No. 21.) Speight has replied. (ECF No. 22.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Speight's § 2255 Motion as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2).

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On December 4, 1990, a grand jury charged Speight with one count of conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count One); two counts of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d) (Counts Two and Four); and two counts of use of a firearm during a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Counts Three and Five). (Indictment 1-7, ECF No. 1.) On March 26, 1991, a jury found Speight guilty of all five charges. (ECF No. 47, at 1.) On May 31, 1991, the Court entered judgment against Speight and sentenced him to the following:

SIXTY (60) MONTHS on Count One; ONE HUNDRED TEN (110) MONTHS on each of Counts Two and Four, to run concurrently with Count One and consecutively to Counts Three and Five; SIXTY (60) MONTHS on Count Three, to run consecutively to Counts One, Two, and Four; and TWO HUNDRED FORTY (240) MONTHS on Count Five, to run consecutively to Counts One, Two, Three, and Four.

(J. 2, ECF No. 62.) On August 18, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Speight's convictions and sentence. United States v. Speight, Nos. 91-5583, 91-5584, 1992 WL 198089, at *4 (4th Cir. Aug. 18, 1992).

         On April 27, 1993, Speight filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 79.) By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on March 4, 1994, the Court denied Speight's § 2255 motion. (See ECF Nos. 108, 109.)

         On July 22, 2013, Speight filed a Motion for Re-Sentencing. (ECF No. 3.)[2] By Memorandum Order entered on November 18, 2014, the Court construed Speight's Motion to be a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 11, at 2.) The Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Motion because it was an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion. (Id. at 3.)

         Thereafter, Speight sought permission from the Fourth Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion based upon the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). On June 29, 2016, the Fourth Circuit granted Speight authorization to file this successive § 2255 motion. (See ECF No. 18, at 1.)

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Speight Fails To Satisfy The Standard For Successive § 2255 Motions

         The Fourth Circuit granted Speight pre-filing authorization to file a successive motion in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). Under § 2255(h)(2), Speight must demonstrate that his claim is based upon "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). In his § 2255 Motion, Speight raises entitlement to relief based upon the following claim:

Claim One: "In light of Johnson v. United States, [135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), ] my convictions for my [§] 924(c) are now unconstitutional." (§ 2255 Mot. 5.)

         The Fourth Circuit's determination that Speight satisfies § 2255(h) "is * tentative in the following sense: the district court must dismiss the motion that [the Fourth Circuit has] allowed the applicant to file, without reaching the merits of the motion, if the court finds that the movant has not satisfied the requirements for the filing of such a motion.'" McLeod v. Peguese, 337 Fed.Appx. 316, 324 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bennett v. United States, 119 F.3d 468, 470 (7th Cir. 1997)). Thus, it is necessary to examine Speight's claim and dismiss it, if the Court finds that it is barred under ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.