From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Elk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION
Jun 28, 2016
Cause No. CR 13-82-BLG-SPW (D. Mont. Jun. 28, 2016)

Opinion

Cause No. CR 13-82-BLG-SPW Cause No. CV 16-92-BLG-SPW

06-28-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. CHASTITY LONE ELK, Defendant/Movant.


ORDER DENYING § 2255 MOTION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This case comes before the Court on a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant Lone Elk is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. She seeks relief under the rule of Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).

Lone Elk pled guilty to one count of conspiring to possess at least 500 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine with intent to distribute it, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841 (Count 1); and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count 4).

Neither the offenses to which Lone Elk pled guilty nor any part of her advisory guideline calculation required the Court to determine the scope of a residual clause of the sort the Johnson Court declared unconstitutionally vague. Some convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) require the sentencing court to determine whether the defendant committed a "crime of violence." But Lone Elk was convicted under § 924(c) because she possessed a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime, not in connection with a crime of violence. Johnson does not apply to Lone Elk's case.

A certificate of appealability is not warranted. Lone Elk has not made a showing that she was deprived of a constitutional right. Because Johnson is not implicated here, reasonable jurists would find no basis to encourage further proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Lone Elk's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 40) is DENIED;

2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall immediately process the appeal if Lone Elk files a Notice of Appeal;

3. The Clerk of Court shall ensure that all pending motions in this case and in CV 16-92-BLG-SPW are terminated and shall close the civil file by entering judgment in favor of the United States and against Lone Elk.

DATED this 28th day of June, 2016.

/s/_________

Susan P. Watters

United States District Court


Summaries of

United States v. Elk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION
Jun 28, 2016
Cause No. CR 13-82-BLG-SPW (D. Mont. Jun. 28, 2016)
Case details for

United States v. Elk

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. CHASTITY LONE ELK…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

Date published: Jun 28, 2016

Citations

Cause No. CR 13-82-BLG-SPW (D. Mont. Jun. 28, 2016)