United States District Court, D. Minnesota
RICHARD H. KYLE United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on Defendant's 2016 Motion to
vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc.
Nos. 58, 65). Defendant asserts this Court erred in
sentencing him as an armed career criminal pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 924(e). The Motion will be denied.
February 2007, a jury convicted Defendant Carl Richardson of
being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Doc. No. 9.) He was sentenced in
May 2007 to 235 months' imprisonment. (Doc. No. 25.)
to sentencing, the Probation Office issued its presentence
investigation report (“PSR”) for Defendant. It
found Defendant had been convicted of at least three violent
felonies and qualified as an armed career criminal under 18
U.S.C. § 924(e), which carries a statutory minimum
sentence of 15 years' imprisonment. In particular, it
found Defendant was:
(1) Charged and convicted in Illinois in 1996 of aggravated
battery with great bodily harm. (PSR ¶ 21.)
(2) Charged in 1997 in Illinois and convicted in 2000 of
aggravated kidnaping. (PSR ¶ 24.)
(3) Charged in 1997 in Illinois and convicted in 2000 of
aggravated battery in a public place. The offense was charged
in the same case as the kidnaping conviction. (PSR ¶
(4) Charged in 1999 in Illinois and convicted in 2000 of
aggravated battery of a peace officer. (PSR ¶ 25.)
did not object to the facts or legal conclusions in the PSR.
In particular, he did not dispute he had been convicted of
four predicate felonies and qualified as an armed career
criminal. (Doc. No. 21; 5/11/07 Sentencing Hr'g Tr.
Court adopted the PSR and sentenced Defendant under the Armed
Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. §
924(e), and under the armed career criminal provisions of the
Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. 4B1.4(b)(3)(B). (PSR
¶¶ 18, 30.) Because the matter was not disputed,
the Court did not make a further determination of the clause
or clauses of the violent felony definition in the statute
Defendant's predicate felonies qualified under.
appealed his conviction but not his sentence. The judgment
was affirmed in August 2008. United States v.
Richardson, 537 F.3d 951, 961 (8th Cir. 2008), cert.
denied, 556 U.S. 1239 (2009).
November 2009, Defendant filed his first motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. Nos. 38, 41.) This Court denied the
motion and no certificate of appealability was issued. (Doc.
No. 49; United States v. Richardson, No. 10-2692,
Entry 3730388 (8th Cir. Dec. 2, 2010).)
September 2015, Defendant filed a § 2255(h) motion with
the Eighth Circuit requesting permission to file a second
§ 2255 motion with this Court. He attached to his §
2255(h) motion a copy of the proposed § 2255 motion he
hoped to file. Richardson v. United States, No.
15-3188, Entry 4321752 (8th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015). The
proposed motion was based on the Supreme Court's 2015
decision in Johnson v. United States, which held the
“residual clause” of § 924(e)'s violent
felony definition was unconstitutionally vague. 135 S.Ct.
2551 (2015). Defendant ...