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. Francis

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

March 29, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANTONIO L. FRANCIS, Petitioner.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          M. Hannah Lauck, United States District Judge

         Petitioner, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, submitted this motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence ("§ 2255 Motion, " ECF No. 52). The Government has responded. For the reasons that follow the § 2255 Motion will be DENIED on the grounds Claim One is barred by the statute of limitations and Claim Two lacks merit.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Petitioner pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. (Plea Agreement ¶ 1, ECF No. 27.) On October 16, 2009, the Court entered judgment and sentenced Petitioner to ten years of imprisonment. (J. 2, ECF No. 41.) Petitioner did not appeal.

         On February 21, 2016, Petitioner executed his § 2255 Motion and presumably mailed the same to the Court. (§ 2255 Mot. 7.)[1] The Court deems the § 2255 Motion filed as of that date. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

         In his § 2255 Motion, Petitioner contends that he is entitled to relief because:

Claim One "The sentencing court received and relied on false, erroneous PSR/PSI information as to criminal history, causing defendant to be harshly and wrongly sentenced." (§ 2255 Mot. 4.)
Claim Two "The Supreme Court's 'vagueness doctrine' of the Johnson decisions are of effect in this case as due to issues involving Defendant's designation as an Armed Career Criminal." (Id. at 5.)

         II. ANALYSIS

          A. Claim Two Lacks Merit

         In Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court described the impact of the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA") on federal gun laws and noted that:

Federal law forbids certain people-such as convicted felons, persons committed to mental institutions, and drug users-to ship, possess, and receive firearms. § 922(g). In general, the law punishes violation[s] of this ban by up to 10 years' imprisonment. § 924(a)(2). But if the violator has three or more earlier convictions for a "serious drug offense" or a "violent felony, " the [ACCA] increases his prison term to a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life. § 924(e)(1).

135 S.Ct. 2551, 2555 (2015) (citations omitted).

         The ACCA defines a violent felony as: "any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" that "(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or (ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) (emphasis added). "The closing words of this definition, italicized above, have come to be known as the Act's residual clause." Johnson, ...


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.