At page 562 stating a defendant sentenced under the residual clause of the career offender Guideline “is entitled to the same relief as offenders sentenced under the residual clause of the ACCA2 citing cases
- United States v. Soto-Rivera, 811 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2016).publishedSee United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204, 1210-11 (10th Cir.2015) (holding the residual clause in the Guidelines unconstitutional in 'light of Johnson); United States v. Taylor, 803 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir.2015) (per curiam) (remanding fo…
- United States v. Cornejo-Lopez, 144 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (D. Neb. 2015).published(stating a defendant sentenced under the residual clause of the career offender Guideline “is entitled to the same relief as offenders sentenced under the residual clause of the ACCA)
At page 563 preme Court held that the identically worded residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is void for vagueness. Compare USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), with 18…2 citing cases
- United States v. Malone, 646 F. App'x 454 (6th Cir. 2016).unpublishedSee, e.g., United States v. Binford, 818 F.3d 261, 274 (6th Cir.2016); United States v. Harbin, 610 Fed.Appx. 562, 563 (6th Cir.2015); United States v. Darden, 605 Fed.Appx. 545, 546 (6th Cir.2015).
- United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2015).publishedSee United States v. Taylor, No. 14-2635 803 F.3d 931, 933 , 2015 WL 5918562, at *2 (8th Cir. Oct. 9, 2015) (to be published in F.3d) ("That the guidelines cannot be unconstitutionally vague because they do not proscribe conduct is doubtfu…
Other citing cases
- United States v. Nathaniel Ozier, 796 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2015).published
- Teron Harris v. United States, No. 16-3332 (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2016).unpublished
- Petrillo v. United States, 147 F. Supp. 3d 9 (D. Conn. 2015).published
- United States v. Brown, 195 F. Supp. 3d 926 (E.D. Mich. 2016).published
v.
Desean R. HARBIN, Defendant-Appellant
ORDER
PER CURIAM.At Desean Harbin’s sentencing, the district court applied the career offender enhancement, USSG § 4B1.1. The issue before this court is whether Harbin’s prior burglary conviction constitutes a “crime of violence” under the residual clause of the career offender enhancement, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2). In Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2556-58, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), the Su[*563] preme Court held that the identically worded residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is void for vagueness. Compare USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), with 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). We have interpreted both residual clauses identically. See United States v. Ford, 560 F.3d 420, 421 (6th Cir.2009); United States v. Houston, 187 F.3d 593, 594-95 (6th Cir.1999). Following Johnson, the Supreme Court has vacated the sentences of offenders who were sentenced under the residual clause of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Maldonado, 581 Fed.Appx. 19, 22-23 (2d Cir.2014), vacated, No. 14-7445, — U.S. -, -, 135 S.Ct. 2929, — L.Ed.2d -, 2015 WL 2473524, at *1 (U.S. June 30, 2015); Beckeles v. United States, 579 Fed.Appx. 833, 833-34 (11th Cir.2014), vacated, No. 14-7390, — U.S. -, -, 135 S.Ct. 2928, — L.Ed.2d -, 2015 WL 2473527, at *1 (U.S. June 30, 2015); see also Wynn v. United States, No 14-9634, — U.S. -, -, 135 S.Ct. 2945, - L.Ed.2d -, 2015 WL 2095652, at *1 (U.S. June 30, 2015) (vacating a Sixth Circuit order, which denied habeas relief based on a predicate offense qualifying under the residual clause of the career offender enhancement). Accordingly, Harbin is entitled to the same relief as offenders sentenced under the residual clause of the ACCA. See United States v. Darden, No. 14-5537, 605 Fed.Appx. 545, 2015 WL 4081065 (6th Cir. Jul. 6, 2015) (per curiam).
For these reasons, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for reconsideration in light of Johnson.