United States v. Craig
5:06-cr-00030
W.D. Va.Apr 21, 2017Background
- In 2006 Thomas Robert Craig pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to the 15-year mandatory minimum.
- The Presentence Report identified multiple prior convictions; at sentencing and on appeal Craig conceded at least two ACCA predicates: a 1983 Virginia burning-motor-vehicle conviction (treated as arson) and a 1992 New York attempted sale of a controlled substance (Class C).
- Craig later filed a § 2255 motion (2016) arguing Johnson v. United States (2015) renders Virginia statutory burglary no longer an ACCA violent felony, and that New York sentencing reforms (2004/2009) reduced his 1994 Class B drug conviction below the ACCA "serious drug offense" threshold.
- The government moved to dismiss; the court ordered supplemental briefing focused on whether the 1994 New York conviction remained a predicate in light of New York's Drug Law Reform Acts and whether Craig was a second felony offender for that conviction.
- The New York appellate record established Craig was sentenced as a second felony offender for the 1994 conviction, which makes the applicable maximum term (both before and after the DLRAs) over ten years.
- The court concluded Craig's record still contains three ACCA predicates (the 1983 arson-like conviction, the 1992 attempted sale, and the 1994 sale as a second felony offender), so his ACCA sentence remains lawful; the § 2255 petition was denied and dismissed, and no COA was issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Johnson (2015) invalidate any ACCA predicates in Craig's record (e.g., Virginia statutory burglary)? | Johnson's invalidation of the residual clause means statutory burglary no longer qualifies as a violent felony, so Craig lacks three predicates. | Even without the residual clause, Craig still has at least three valid ACCA predicates. | Court declined to resolve burglary issue because three predicates remain; Johnson did not entitle relief. |
| Does Craig's 1994 NY Class B drug conviction remain a "serious drug offense" for ACCA purposes after NY DLRAs? | DLRAs retroactively lower the maximum to nine years for first-time Class B offenders, removing the conviction from ACCA scope. | Craig was sentenced as a second felony offender, so the applicable maximum exceeded ten years both before and after DLRAs; conviction remains a serious drug offense. | Held that Craig was adjudicated a second felony offender; the maximum exceeded ten years, so the 1994 conviction remains an ACCA predicate. |
| Is Craig's § 2255 petition timely under § 2255(f)(3) based on Johnson being a new retroactive rule? | Johnson announced a new, retroactively applicable rule, making the § 2255 timely. | Even accepting Johnson, Craig still has three predicates; therefore Johnson does not provide relief or tolling. | Petition untimely under § 2255(f) as Johnson does not change the outcome because three predicates remain. |
| Did Craig meet the burden to show his sentence was unlawful, void, or otherwise subject to collateral attack? | Craig argued shifting law undermines the ACCA enhancement. | Government showed three valid predicates remain; no error in sentencing. | Petition dismissed for failure to state a viable § 2255 claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (struck down ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011) (use the maximum term of imprisonment applicable at the time of the state conviction when determining ACCA serious drug offenses)
- Pettiford v. United States, 612 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2010) (if three predicates remain after Johnson analysis, ACCA enhancement still valid)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson announced a new rule made retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 553 U.S. 377 (2008) (courts must consider recidivist sentencing enhancements when determining the maximum term applicable to a prior conviction)
- United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 677 (4th Cir. 2017) (discusses reliance on Johnson in § 2255 proceedings)