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. Riley

United States District Court, D. Maryland

May 14, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAMIEN RILEY

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Marvin J. Garbis, United States District Judge.

         The 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 unnecessary.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On 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.[1] 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 substances).[2]

         On May 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.

         Petitioner 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).

         By the instant Motion timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Petitioner seeks to have his sentence vacated and reduced.

         II. GROUNDS ASSERTED

         Petitioner 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 devices,
7. Speedy Trial Act Violation,
8. Due Process Violation: Discovery not personally provided to Defendant,
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 ...

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.