United States v. George Davis
708 F. App'x 767
4th Cir.2017Background
- In 2009 Davis pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and to being a felon in possession of a firearm; district court treated him as both a career offender (USSG §4B1.1) and an armed career criminal (ACCA, 18 U.S.C. §924(e)).
- His federal sentence was 192 months on each count, concurrent; he did not appeal at that time.
- After Johnson v. United States, Davis obtained authorization to file a successive §2255 and argued his attempted statutory burglary predicate no longer qualified under ACCA.
- The district court agreed that attempted statutory burglary no longer qualified under ACCA, granted relief, and amended the §922(g) sentence to the statutory 10-year maximum and to reflect that Davis was not an armed career criminal, but did not hold a formal resentencing hearing.
- The district court retained the career-offender enhancement under USSG §4B1.1 and kept the Guidelines range the same; Davis appealed solely arguing the court abused its discretion by not conducting a formal resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (Govt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by not conducting a formal resentencing after granting §2255 relief | The court must hold a resentencing to fully remedy the sentencing error and adjust all consequences | District court may "correct" the unlawful sentence under §2255 without a formal resentencing when the practical effect vacates the invalid enhancement | No abuse of discretion; court permissibly corrected the sentence without a formal resentencing |
| Whether attempted statutory burglary qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA post-Johnson | Attempted statutory burglary does not qualify, so ACCA enhancement must be removed | ACCA enhancement no longer applies because of Johnson; relief appropriate | Parties and court agreed attempted statutory burglary no longer qualified; ACCA enhancement removed |
| Whether Davis still qualified as a career offender under USSG §4B1.1 after ACCA removal | Davis argued challenges to career-offender status | Government argued career-offender status remained supported by robbery predicate under the Guidelines' residual clause | Career-offender designation upheld; Davis’ Guidelines range remained the same |
| Whether Davis is entitled to resentencing under current (post-Beckles/residual-clause repeal) Guidelines | Davis sought benefit of the current §4B1.2(a) (no residual clause) and a new sentencing hearing | Court relied on Beckles and precedent maintaining career-offender application at time of original sentencing | Not entitled to resentencing under current Guidelines; Beckles forecloses relief |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652 (4th Cir. 2007) (district court has broad discretion to fashion §2255 remedies and may correct rather than formally resentence)
- United States v. Hillary, 106 F.3d 1170 (4th Cir. 1997) (district court authorized to conduct resentencing in §2255 proceedings)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Sentencing Guidelines' residual clause is not void for vagueness under the Constitution)
- United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 677 (4th Cir. 2017) (Virginia common-law robbery does not qualify under the ACCA violent-felony definition)
- United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2017) (robbery remains a qualifying career-offender predicate under the Guidelines' residual clause)