United States v. Danson
Criminal No. 2010-0051
| D.D.C. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Randolph K. Danson pleaded guilty on October 7, 2011 to one count of RICO conspiracy (drug-related) in a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea and agreed to a 192‑month sentence, which the Court accepted on December 21, 2011.
- The PSR designated Danson as a career offender under USSG §4B1.1 based on two prior felony controlled‑substance convictions (attempted distribution of cocaine; attempted possession with intent to distribute PCP), producing a Guidelines range of 262–327 months (offense level 34, CHC VI).
- Despite the higher Guidelines range, the parties’ plea fixed a below‑Guidelines sentence of 192 months by agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C).
- Danson filed a pro se §2255 motion (2016–2017) seeking sentence relief based on Johnson v. United States and related challenges to the career‑offender designation and the Guidelines’ residual clause.
- The Government opposed; the Court treated Johnson‑based claims in light of the Supreme Court’s later decision in Beckles and rejected untimely non‑Johnson challenges as waived under §2255(f).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Guidelines’ residual clause in USSG §4B1.2 is void for vagueness (Johnson theory) | Johnson’s reasoning applies to the Guidelines’ residual clause and renders Danson’s career‑offender enhancement invalid | Beckles controls: the advisory Guidelines are not subject to Due Process vagueness challenges | Denied — Beckles forecloses a vagueness attack on the advisory Guidelines’ residual clause |
| Whether Danson’s prior convictions qualify as controlled‑substance offenses for career‑offender status | Attempted distribution and attempted possession with intent to distribute do not qualify as controlled‑substance offenses under §4B1.2 | The Guidelines (and Application Note 1) explicitly include attempts and conspiracies; the underlying offense and priors qualify | Denied — priors count as controlled‑substance offenses; career‑offender designation valid; additionally, claim waived as untimely under §2255(f) |
| Whether relief is warranted despite the parties’ Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea | (Implicit) A Guidelines change would reduce sentence despite plea agreement | The plea fixed the sentence at 192 months; no applicable Guidelines change that would mandate relief | Denied — no relevant Guidelines change and plea fixed the sentence |
| Whether court should authorize discovery or appoint counsel in habeas proceedings | Requests not sufficiently supported in the motion | No good cause for discovery; appointment of counsel not required because interests of justice not shown | Denied — no discovery or appointed counsel granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (held advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (held the Guidelines advisory, preserving judicial sentencing discretion)