United States District Court, D. Maryland
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff.
LARVON LANGLEY, Defendant. Criminal No. ELH-12-0311
L. Hollander United States District Judge
Court has received correspondence from Larvon Langley (ECF
63; ECF 64; ECF 65), in which he complains that he was
unlawfully sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act
(“ACCA”). In support of his contention, Langley
has cited, inter alia, Johnson v. United
States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), and Stinston v.
United States, 113 S.Ct. 913 (1993).
to an Order of January 22, 2016 (ECF 67), the Court gave
notice that it construed ECF 64 as a motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct sentence, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the
“Petition”). Therefore, the Court directed the
government to respond to Mr. Langley’s Petition. The
government responded on February 3, 2016. ECF 70. In a letter
docketed June 13, 2016 (ECF 76), Mr. Langley reiterated his
claim that he is entitled to relief under Johnson.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(b), a hearing is required
“[u]nless the motion and the files and records
conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief
. . . .” In my view, no hearing is necessary.
reasons that follow, I shall DENY the Petition.
Factual and Procedural Background
to a Plea Agreement dated October 22, 2012 (ECF 27), Mr.
Langley entered a plea of guilty in open court on December 6,
2012 (ECF 26) to Count One of an Indictment charging him with
possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In advance of
sentencing, the United States Probation Office completed a
presentence report (“PSR”) for the defendant (ECF
34), discussed, infra.
defendant was sentenced on November 13, 2013 (ECF 54; ECF 55;
ECF 56). The defendant’s final offense level was
determined to be 31, with a criminal history category of VI.
Under the Advisory Sentencing Guidelines, the range of
imprisonment was 188 to 235 months. At sentencing, the Court
determined that the defendant was an Armed Career Criminal.
Therefore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), the Court
imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months’
August 24, 2015, the Court docketed correspondence from Mr.
Langley (ECF 63), indicating his view that he was unlawfully
sentenced under the ACCA “do [sic] to the use of the
PSR.” ECF 63 at 1. In particular, he complained that
one of the charges used to enhance his sentence “was a
simple possession of a fire arm [sic] that was used as an
4B1.4 offence [sic] that should not have been used against
[him].” He cited, inter alia, Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), and Stinson v.
United States, 113 S.Ct. 913 (1993), to support his
letter docketed August 31, 2015 (ECF 64), Mr. Langley again
wrote to the Court, stating, in part: “I see that I
have an issue do [sic] the new [case of] Johnson v.
United States June 26 15.” Complaining that
his sentence was unlawfully enhanced by a prior offense of
possession of a firearm that should not have been considered,
Mr. Langley asserted: “Now that Johnson v. United
States has come out, my offense would not still trigger
the (ACCA) nor would this conviction any longer be used under
the ‘Cachall’ Clause, The residual Clause 18
U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).” He also asserted that
“the felon in possession offense is not a crime of
Langley again wrote to the Court by letter dated October 27,
2015, docketed on November 19, 2015. ECF 65. He reiterated
that he was erroneously found to be an armed career criminal.
on November 20, 2015, I wrote to the Office of the Federal
Public Defender (“OFPD”), enclosing Mr.
Langley’s letter of November 19, 2015. ECF 16. I
indicated that in ECF 65, Mr. Langley sought a
court-appointed attorney to challenge his ACCA status. The
OFPD has declined to enter an appearance for Mr. Langley.
noted, by Order of January 22, 2016, I issued an Order
indicating that I had construed Mr. Langley’s
correspondence (ECF 64) as a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct Sentence, and I directed the government to respond. A
few days later, on January 29, 2016, I received a motion from
the government to stay proceedings. ECF 68. In its motion for
a stay, the government explained that it “believe[d]
the petitioner’s allegations implicate Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), ” and thus a
stay was appropriate under the Standing Order issued by Chief
Judge Catherine Blake, dated November 12, 2015, with respect
to post-conviction cases implicating Johnson.
See ECF 68. I granted the government’s motion
for a stay on the same date. ECF 69. However, soon after, on
February 10, 2016, I received the government’s response
to the Petition (ECF 70), in which it addressed the merits of
Mr. Langley’s Petition.
I issued an Order dated May 12, 2016 (ECF 71), asking the
government to clarify its position as to the stay that it had
previously requested. In a letter dated May 13, 2016 (ECF
72), the ...