From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Jackson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 10, 2018
CR 12-69 (W.D. Pa. May. 10, 2018)

Opinion

CR 12-69 CV 16-85

05-10-2018

UNITED STATES v. JARRON DARVEZ JACKSON


MEMORANDUM ORDER

In this action, Defendant pleaded guilty to one Count of violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). On May 15, 2015, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ninety-two months. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. On July 25, 2017, he filed a Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which he later supplemented. Counsel was then appointed, and asserted a claim pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Via his counseled petition, Defendant abandoned the substance of his previous, pro se non-Johnson claims. For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion will be denied, and no certificate of appealability shall issue.

Judge Cercone presided over this matter until it was transferred to my docket on February 2, 2018. --------

Defendant was sentenced based on U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1), based on two felony convictions for "crimes of violence." His predicate convictions were for Illinois aggravated battery, 720 ILCS § 5/12-4(a), and Pennsylvania aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(3). "Crime of violence" in Section 2K2.1 is defined by reference to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. Defendant argues that his convictions do not qualify as predicates under the applicable residual clause; he argues only that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson. Since Defendant's Motion, the Supreme Court decided Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017). Beckles made clear that "the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause." Id. at 890. Therefore, Johnson cannot form a basis for relief from Defendant's sentence, and his Motion must be denied.

According to 28 U.S.C.§ 2253(c)(2), a "certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Defendant has made no such showing here, and no certificate of appealability shall issue.

AND NOW, this 10th day of May, 2018, IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/_________

Donetta W. Ambrose

Senior Judge, U.S. District Court


Summaries of

United States v. Jackson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 10, 2018
CR 12-69 (W.D. Pa. May. 10, 2018)
Case details for

United States v. Jackson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES v. JARRON DARVEZ JACKSON

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: May 10, 2018

Citations

CR 12-69 (W.D. Pa. May. 10, 2018)