Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bradley v. United States

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

December 12, 2016

Marvin Eugene Bradley, Petitioner,
v.
United States of America, Respondent.

          ORDER

          PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY United States District Judge

         Federal prisoners Marvin Eugene Bradley moves to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 60). Previously, the Court stayed proceedings pending the Fourth Circuit's decision in United States v. Doctor. Now that the Fourth Circuit has issued that decision, this Court now lifts the stay and, for the reasons stated herein, denies Bradley's § 2255 motion.[1]

         BACKGROUND

         In 2009, Bradley pled guilty to two counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b). At that time, his criminal history included a conviction in South Carolina state court for armed robbery[2] and a federal-court drug conviction. At sentencing, the Court determined those prior convictions made Bradley a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1, 4B1.2(a) (2008). After granting a request by the Government to depart downward, see U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, the Court sentenced Bradley to 108 months in prison on each count, to be served concurrently. Bradley did not appeal.

         In May 2016, Bradley filed his § 2255 motion, in which he asserted that his career-offender designation is unconstitutional under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). In lieu of a response, the Government filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in Beckles v. United States, 616 F. App'x 415 (11th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, 2016 WL 1029080 (U.S. June 27, 2016) (No. 15-8544). After Bradley filed a response in opposition to the Government's motion, the Court granted the Government's request, with a slight modification. Although the Court agreed with the Government that Beckles may control the outcome of Bradley's § 2255 motion, the Court also found that the Fourth Circuit's then-pending decision in Doctor was also likely to control the outcome. Accordingly, the Court stayed proceedings until both cases were decided.

         The Fourth Circuit issued its decision in Doctor on November 21. Having carefully analyzed that opinion, this Court finds that it need not wait for Beckles in order to rule on Bradley's § 2255 motion. Accordingly, it now lifts the stay.

         APPLICABLE LAW

         Bradley proceeds under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which provides, in relevant part:

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). On a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence under § 2255, the petitioner bears the burden of proving the grounds for collateral attack by a preponderance of the evidence. Miller v. United States, 261 F.2d 546, 547 (4th Cir. 1958). In deciding a § 2255 motion, the district court need not hold a hearing if “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).

         DISCUSSION

         Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant is a career offender if

(1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). Bradley's motion focuses solely on the third element. Although Bradley concedes his prior federal drug conviction is a predicate controlled substance offense, he argues his armed-robbery conviction cannot constitute a “crime of violence.” See U.S.S.G. ยง 4B1.2(a) (defining that term). Thus, he contends, he does not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.