From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Anderson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
May 11, 2018
CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 11-00096-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. May. 11, 2018)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 11-00096-BAJ-RLB

05-11-2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RAMON ANDERSON


RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. 72) filed by Defendant, Ramon Anderson, requesting that the Court vacate his sentence in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the Armed Career Criminal Act's ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. In accordance with the Court's previous order in Case No. 11-cr-147 (Doc. 76), the motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 10, 2012, in Case No. 11-cr-96, Petitioner pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). (Doc 40). On June 12, 2012, in Case No. 11-cr-147, after a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Doc. 76 at p. 1). On March 12, 2013, the Court sentenced Petitioner to a term of imprisonment of 84 months in Case No. 11-cr-96 and Case No. 11-cr-147, to run concurrently. (Doc. 59). On June 24 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in Case No. 11-cr-96 and Case No. 11-CR-147. (Doc. 72). The Government responded. (Doc. 75).

On November 13, 2017, the Court entered a ruling in Case No. 11-cr-147 (Doc. 76). The Court denied Petitioner's § 2255 motion in that case because it found that Petitioner was not sentenced under the residual clause of the ACCA, and therefore, Johnson did not apply to Petitioner. (Id. at pp. 2-3).

II. DISCUSSION

As the Court noted in its earlier order, Petitioner was sentenced at the same time in Cases No. 11-cr-96 and 11-cr-147. (Doc. 76 at p. 1). Accordingly, Petitioner was not sentenced under the ACCA's residual clause, and he is therefore not entitled to relief.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 72) is DENIED.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 11th day of May, 2018.

/s/ _________

BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA


Summaries of

United States v. Anderson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
May 11, 2018
CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 11-00096-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. May. 11, 2018)
Case details for

United States v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RAMON ANDERSON

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: May 11, 2018

Citations

CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 11-00096-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. May. 11, 2018)