2:16-cr-20419
E.D. Mich.May 28, 2019Background
- Frank Washington pleaded guilty to four Hobbs Act robbery counts (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and one count of using a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); sentenced March 15, 2017 to concurrent 36-month terms and an 84-month § 924(c) term.
- Judgment became final March 29, 2017 (no appeal); the § 2255 one-year statute of limitations expired March 29, 2018.
- Washington sought an extension before the deadline, citing limited law-library access after an assault and transfers; the court initially denied the extension request for lack of jurisdiction.
- Washington filed a § 2255 motion in June 2018 arguing that Sessions v. Dimaya invalidates § 924(c)’s residual clause and thus his § 924(c) conviction should be vacated; he simultaneously moved for reconsideration of the denied extension.
- The court granted equitable tolling and reconsidered the late § 2255 filing, but on the merits held that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A), so Washington’s conviction stands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should excuse Washington’s untimely § 2255 filing | Gov’t: timeliness not excused; procedural bars apply | Washington: extraordinary circumstances (assault, SHU, transfer, lack of law-library access) justify equitable tolling | Court: granted equitable tolling and reconsideration because Washington was diligent and the Government suffered no prejudice |
| Whether § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause is unconstitutionally vague post-Dimaya | Gov’t: Dimaya did not extend to § 924(c)(3)(B); § 924(c) distinguishable | Washington: Dimaya’s reasoning on vagueness applies to § 924(c) residual clause, invalidating his § 924(c) conviction | Court: declined to decide residual-clause validity because even if (B) invalid, Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under § 924(c)(3)(A); denied relief |
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) | N/A | Washington: Hobbs Act does not necessarily require violent force | Court: held Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) based on Sixth Circuit precedent; conviction remains valid |
| Whether to grant a certificate of appealability | N/A | Washington: claims adequate for appeal | Court: denied COA because claims lack merit and are not debatable among reasonable jurists |
Key Cases Cited
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (held INA §16(b) residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause for vagueness)
- United States v. Gooch, 850 F.3d 285 (6th Cir. 2017) (held Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A))
- United States v. Asakevich, 810 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 2016) (recognizes availability of equitable tolling for § 2255 limitations)
- Solomon v. United States, 467 F.3d 928 (6th Cir. 2006) (sets factors for equitable tolling in § 2255 context)
- Humphress v. United States, 398 F.3d 855 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard for relief under § 2255)