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.

United States v. Holland

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 29, 2017

United States of America, Plaintiff/Respondent,
v.
D-8 David Lamont Holland, Defendant/Petitioner.

          OPINION & ORDER DENYING § 2255 MOTION AND DECLINING TO ISSUE

          Hon. Sean F. Cox, Judge

         In Criminal Case Number 12-20218, Petitioner David Lamont Holland (“Petitioner”) pleaded guilty, pursuant to a Rule 11 Plea Agreement, to two counts of Robbery Affecting Interstate Commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and two counts of Using or Carrying a Firearm During a Federal Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Doc. # 102, Rule 11 Plea). This Court sentenced Petitioner to a total term of 240 months. (Doc. # 283).

         The matter is now before the Court on Petitioner's pro se letter, construed by the Court as a Motion to Vacate Sentence brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. # 418, Pet. Br.). Petitioner's request for relief is based upon the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2251 (2015), which held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) was unconstitutionally vague. The Government has filed a response opposing Petitioner's motion. (Doc. # 405, Gov't Resp.). Petitioner has not filed a reply to the Government's response and time to do so has passed.

         Because the files and records of the case conclusively establish that Petitioner is not entitled to relief as to any of the claims set forth in this § 2255 motion, an evidentiary hearing is not necessary. The motion is therefore ready for a decision by this Court. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's motion to vacate will be DENIED. Moreover, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

         BACKGROUND

         On May 2, 2013, Petitioner pleaded guilty, pursuant to a Rule 11 Plea Agreement, “to Counts Nine, Ten, Eleven and Twelve of the Third Superseding Indictment which charge two counts each of Robbery Affecting Interstate Commerce and Using or Carrying a Firearm During and in Relation to a Federal Crime of Violence.” (Rule 11 Plea, at ¶ 1A). The Rule 11 Plea Agreement provided the following factual basis for Petitioner's guilty plea:

On December 1, 2012, Jesse Gordon Dismukes, Jr. and DAVID LAMONT HOLLAND entered the Radio Shack store located at 15005 E. 8 Mile Road, Eastpointe, Michigan unmasked and robbed employees of cellular telephones and cash. The robbers brandished semi-automatic pistols which they pointed at the employees and ordered them to the back of the store where the cellular telephones were stored . . . .
On December 7, 2012, Jesse Gordon Dismukes, Jr. and DAVID LAMONT HOLLAND entered the T-Mobile store located at 12555 Grand River in Detroit, Michigan unmasked and robbed employees of cellular telephones and cash. Dismukes brandished a pistol which he pointed at the employees and ordered them to surrender the cellular telephones, while HOLLAND gathered merchandise . . . .

(Id. at ¶ 1C).

         This Court sentenced Petitioner to: (1) 40 months of imprisonment on Counts 9 and 11, to run concurrently; (2) to 80 months of imprisonment on Count 10, to run consecutively to the sentence imposed on Counts 9 and 11; and (3) to 120 months of imprisonment on Count 12, to run consecutively to the sentence imposed on all other counts. (Doc. # 283). Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.

         On June 16, 2016, Petitioner filed a pro se letter, which the Court has construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. (Doc. # 418). In it, Petitioner asserts that he received a significant enhancement under provisions that have subsequently been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Johnson. The Government filed a brief in opposition to the motion on September 20, 2016. (Doc. # 405).

         STANDARD

         Petitioner's motion is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which provides:

A prisoner in custody under a sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence imposed was in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral ...

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.