Greene v. United States
- Denny Chin
- 1:16-cv-04808
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Greene v. United States, Circuit Judge Chin denied Damien Greene’s request to vacate his sentence based on Johnson.
Damien Greene, whose request for resentencing and challenge to his career-offender classification were denied.
What happened
In Greene v. United States, Damien Greene, who represented himself, asked the court to vacate or correct his 224-month prison sentence under a federal law allowing challenges to federal sentences. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States.
Greene argued that one prior conviction used to classify him as a career offender—assault and battery with intent to kill—no longer qualified as a crime of violence because of Johnson. The government’s position is not described in the order.
The court denied Greene’s petition because the Supreme Court later held in Beckles v. United States that the advisory Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause could not be challenged as unconstitutionally vague. Circuit Judge Denny Chin, sitting by designation, ordered the clerk to terminate the related motion.
The detailed version
- Greene v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-04808
- Denny Chin
- Feb. 4, 2021
Background
Damien Greene, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure for asking a court to vacate, set aside, or correct a federal sentence. He sought resentencing based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).
Greene had principally been sentenced to 224 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to several offenses related to armed bank robbery. At sentencing, he was classified as a “career offender” under the 2013 Sentencing Guidelines. That classification required, among other things, two prior felony convictions for either a crime of violence or a controlled-substance offense.
Greene did not dispute that he was over eighteen when he committed the offenses, that armed bank robbery was a crime of violence, or that his prior conviction involving the manufacture or distribution of methamphetamine or cocaine base was a controlled-substance offense. He challenged the use of his prior conviction for assault and battery with intent to kill as a crime of violence.
Legal issue and analysis
The 2013 Guidelines defined a crime of violence to include an offense involving conduct that presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. This language was called the “residual clause.” In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that an identically worded residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague.
Greene argued that Johnson likewise made the Guidelines’ residual clause unconstitutionally vague and that he should be resentenced without the career-offender enhancement.
The court rejected that argument as foreclosed by Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017). Beckles held that the advisory Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause was not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause because the Guidelines were advisory. The court also cited a Second Circuit decision stating that Johnson did not itself make the mandatory Career Offender Guideline residual clause vague for purposes of a § 2255 challenge.
Ruling
The court denied Greene’s petition seeking resentencing based on Johnson. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at civil docket number 1 and criminal docket number 79. The order was signed by Denny Chin, United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.