United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. Garbis, United States District Judge.
Court has before it Petitioner's Motion Under 28 USC 2255
[sic] to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence By a Person
In Federal Custody [ECF No. 123], and the materials submitted
relating thereto. The Court finds that a hearing is
February 9, 2015, Petitioner Damien Riley
(“Riley” or “Petitioner”) was
convicted by a jury trial on Counts One, Two, Three, and Four
of the Second Superseding Indictment. Based on the signed Verdict
Sheet [ECF No. 85], the jury did not reach a unanimous
verdict on Count Five (possession with intent to distribute
heroin), Count Six (unlawful firearm possession), or Count
Seven (maintenance of a place for the purpose of
manufacturing, storing, distributing, and using controlled
26, 2015, Judge Quarles, the trial judge, sentenced
Petitioner on the four Counts of conviction by jury.
See ECF No. 104. The Judge found that Petitioner was
a career offender based on his previous felony convictions
under Maryland law for robbery with a dangerous weapon and
distribution of a controlled dangerous substance.
See USSG § 4B1.1(a); ECF No. 108.
Petitioner's Offense Level was determined to be 32 with a
Criminal History Category of VI, resulting in a Guidelines
sentencing range of 210 to 262 months. See ECF No.
108. Judge Quarles sentenced Petitioner at the low end of the
Guidelines range: 210 months on each Count of conviction, to
be served concurrently for a total of 210 months.
See ECF No. 107.
appealed, asserting on appeal a single issue, that he had
wrongly been classified as a career offender at sentencing.
However, on May 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence:
“The only question on appeal is whether Maryland
robbery with a dangerous weapon qualifies as a ‘crime
of violence.' We conclude that it does.”
United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir.
2017), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 273 (2017).
instant Motion timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255, Petitioner seeks to have his sentence vacated and
bases his claim for sentence reduction upon the assertion of
seventeen stated grounds:
1. Career Offender Determination and Sentence Enhancement,
2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Ms. Silva, Esq.),
3. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Mr. Hazelhurst, Esq.),
4. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Mr. Ruter, Esq.),
5. Prosecutorial Vindictiveness,
6. Fourth Amendment Violation: Use of Stingray/Triggerfish
7. Speedy Trial Act Violation,
8. Due Process Violation: Discovery not personally provided
9. F. R. Crim. P. Violation: Failure to File Superseding
Indictment Within 30 Days of Arrest (Count One),
10. F. R. Crim. P. Violation: Failure to File Superseding
Indictment Within 30 Days of Arrest (Count Two),
11. F. R. Crim. P. Violation: Failure to File Superseding
Indictment Within 30 Days of Arrest (Count Three),
12. F. R. Crim. P. Violation: Failure to File Superseding
Indictment Within 30 Days of Arrest (Count Four),
13. Cumulative Error,
14. Sixth Amendment Violation for Denial of Right ...