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.

Manners v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

January 13, 2020

Erick Manners, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
United States of America, Respondent-Appellee.

          On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit; Nos. 2:06-cr-20465-4; 2:16-cv-12486-Nancy G. Edmunds, District Judge.

         ON BRIEF:

          COLLEEN P. FITZHARRIS, FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEFENDER, DETROIT, MICHIGAN, FOR APPELLANT.

          SHANE N. CRALLE, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN, FOR APPELLEE.

          Before: SUHRHEINRICH, MOORE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

          OPINION

          KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge.

          This case is before us on remand following the Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018). Petitioner Erick Manners argues that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) must be vacated because the predicate offense, 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(3), is not a "crime of violence" for purposes of § 924(c).

         We disagree, and we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court denying Manners's motion to vacate.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In 2011, Manners pleaded guilty to two counts: 1) assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(3), and 2) use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district court sentenced him to eighteen months of imprisonment on the first count and 120 months on the second count, to be served consecutively.

         In 2016, Manners filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). He argued that 1) his conviction under § 924(c) could not be based on the statute's residual clause because Johnson invalidated a similar residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), and 2) his predicate offense did not have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, so this offense could not fall under § 924(c)(3)'s elements clause. The district court denied Manners's motion, explaining that it was bound by this court's holding that Johnson did not invalidate § 924(c)(3)'s residual clause. See United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340, 379 (6th Cir. 2016), abrogated by United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019). The district court held in the alternative that Manners's argument about the inapplicability of § 924(c)(3)'s elements clause to his predicate offense was without merit.

         We affirmed the district court's denial of Manners's motion to vacate, relying on then-binding precedent in Taylor. Manners v. United States, No. 17-1171, 2017 WL 3613308, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 22, 2017) (order), vacated, 139 S.Ct. 56 (2018) (mem.). We did not address the district court's alternative holding that Manners's conviction qualified as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)'s elements clause. Id.

         Manners thereafter petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and the Court granted the petition and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, which held that the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 16 was unconstitutionally vague. 138 S.Ct. at 1223. After the Supreme Court remanded this case to us, it expressly determined that § 924(c)(3)'s residual clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), also was unconstitutionally vague. Davis, 139 S.Ct. at 2336.

         II. ...


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.