United States District Court, D. Minnesota
R. Winter, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for
Lee Jensrud, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
Michael J. Davis Judge
matter is before the Court on Defendant Jesse Lee
Jensrud's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate,
Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal
Custody. [Docket No. 36]
January 17, 2008, Defendant Jesse Lee Jensrud pled guilty to
Count 2 of the Indictment: Possession with Intent to
Distribute in Excess of 50 Grams of Methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B).
Count 1, alleging Possession of a Firearm by an Armed Career
Criminal, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)
and 924(e)(1) (the “Armed Career Criminal Act” or
“ACCA”), was dismissed at sentencing.
April 29, 2008, the Court sentenced Defendant to 188 in
prison, which was within the Guideline range of 188 to 235
months. [Docket Nos. 27-28] ¶ 5-year statutory mandatory
minimum applied under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), because
Defendant possessed with intent to distribute in excess of 50
grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable
amount of methamphetamine. The ACCA did not apply. The Court
calculated Defendant's total offense level by applying
the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, based
on Defendant's previous convictions for a “crime of
violence, ” as defined under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2.
(PSI ¶ 22.) The Court determined that at least two of
the following prior convictions qualified as a “crime
of violence:” third degree burglary, first degree
burglary, and reckless discharge of a firearm. (Id.)
9, 2016, Defendant filed the current Motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a
Person in Federal Custody. [Docket No. 36] Defendant asserts
that the Court incorrectly sentenced him as a career offender
under the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that his predicate
offenses only qualified as a crime of violence under the
Sentencing Guidelines based on the residual clause in
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. He claims that the application of that
residual clause was unconstitutional under Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). This matter was
stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Beckles v. United States.
Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying
Fees or Costs
Court denies Defendant's Application to Proceed in
District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs as moot
because there is no filing fee for filing a § 2255
Standard for Relief under ...