Swann v. USA - 2255, No. 8:2016cv02108 - Document 2 (D. Md. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Michael Anthony Swann 12/15/17). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/15/2017. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Swann v. USA - 2255 Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : MICHAEL ANTHONY SWANN : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 16-2108 Criminal No. DKC 14-0264 : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner Michael Anthony Swann pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon on January 16, 2015. He was imprisonment. sentenced on April 22, 2015 to 72 months During the sentencing hearing, the court found that Petitioner committed this offense subsequent to sustaining at least two prior convictions for crimes of violence under 2K2.1(a)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines. Through counsel, Petitioner filed a Motion to Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that, in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), the “residual clause” in the guidelines was void for vagueness, improperly meaning classified as that crimes the of prior convictions violence under were the guidelines. The Supreme Court’s later decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017), held that the advisory sentencing guidelines are not subject to the Johnson analysis. Counsel Dockets.Justia.com sent letters to Petitioner, seeking his consent to withdraw the petition. for When counsel received no response, he filed a motion leave to withdraw, which was granted. The Petition, however, remains pending. Petitioner’s residual clause vagueness. only in claim the is that, sentencing under Johnson, is guidelines the for void As noted by counsel in his motion to withdraw, this argument is foreclosed by the later Supreme Court decision in Beckles. Accordingly, the pending petition is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court is also required to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A certificate of appealability is a “jurisdictional prerequisite” earlier order. United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 659 (4th Cir. 2007). to an appeal from the court’s A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where the court denies petitioner’s motion on its merits, a petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the court’s assessment of the claim debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also Miller-El 2 v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003). Upon review of the record, the court finds that Petitioner does not satisfy the above standard. Accordingly, the court will decline to issue a certificate of appealability. A separate order will be entered. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
