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.

Vaughn v. United States

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 20, 2017

NAEEM VAUGHN, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Crim. No. 14-616 (WJM)

          OPINION

          WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

         This matter comes before the Court on pro se Petitioner Naeem Vaughn's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Vaughn challenges his sentence on the following three grounds. First, his prior conviction for aggravated assault does not qualify as a “crime of violence” for the purpose of setting his Base Offense Level, because the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) implement the same “residual clause” deemed unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Second, Vaughn received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer failed to make a certain Brady challenge regarding the application of a 2-level enhancement under 2K2.1(b)(4)(a). Third, the Court incorrectly applied a 4-level enhancement under sentencing guideline § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (using a firearm in connection with another felony). There was no oral argument. For the reasons stated below, Vaughn's § 2255 motion is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the relief requested therein is DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Criminal Offense and Sentencing

         On May 7, 2014, Petitioner Naeem Vaughn was arrested by Newark Police Department Officers who were conducting a routine patrol of Stephen Crane Plaza. Two officers saw Vaughn pick up a firearm and begin running in the opposite direction. While fleeing Vaughn parted ways with the firearm, later identified as a .40 caliber HiPoint Smith & Wesson. When he eventually submitted to arrest, Vaughn was found to be in possession of 30 “baggies” of crack cocaine.

         On January 21, 2015, Vaughn pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). There was no plea agreement. At sentencing, the Court adopted the Government's finding of an offense level of 27, with an advisory guideline range of 100-120 months. See Sentencing Transcript (“Tr.”) 21:3-7, Docket No. 14-cr-616, ECF No. 20. The offense level was predicated on a 2-level enhancement for use of a stolen firearm, § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A), and a 4-level enhancement for use of a firearm “in connection with another felony offense, ” § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), namely possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Vaughn's attorney argued that the prosecutor failed to establish that the gun was in fact stolen or that the drugs were intended for distribution rather than for personal use. Tr. 7-9. The Court disagreed and found, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that both enhancements would apply. Tr. 21:3-5. After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court departed downward to offense level 24 and sentenced Vaughn to a term of 78 months. Tr. 32-33. Vaughn now resides at USP Allenwood in Allenwood, Pennsylvania. Docket No. 16-cv-616, ECF No. 1.

         B. The Instant Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

         Vaughn has filed a pro se § 2255 motion seeking to vacate or modify his sentence on three grounds. First, Vaughn claims that the residual clause in Guideline § 2K2.1(a)(1) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness pursuant to Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Second, Vaughn asserts that his right to effective counsel was violated because his counsel failed to challenge under Brady v. Maryland the Court's application of a 2-level enhancement under 2K2.1(b)(a). Lastly, Vaughn argues that the government failed to establish that Vaughn used the firearm while in possession with intent to distribute drugs, a finding which led to a 4-level enhancement under 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The motion is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal court may vacate, set aside or correct a sentence “upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). A hearing is not required for § 2255 motion where “the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” United States v. Padilla- Castro, 426 F. App'x 60, 63 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b)); accord United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 41-42 (3d Cir. 1992). “[A]n error of law does not provide a basis for collateral attack unless the claimed error constituted a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (1979) (internal quotations omitted).

         III. DISCUSSION

         1. The Residual Clause under Guideline 2K2.1(a)(2)

         Petitioner Vaughn argues that his prior conviction for aggravated assault cannot qualify him for enhancement as a “crime of violence” under the “residual clause” of § 2K2.1(a)(2)[1] in light of Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2563. The Supreme Court in Johnson struck down an identical residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), as unconstitutionally vague. 135 S.Ct. at 2563.[2]That holding applies retroactively pursuant to Welch v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 1268 (2016). Vaughn's challenge nonetheless fails because the Supreme Court has since held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are not susceptible to challenges under the void-for-vagueness doctrine delineated in Johnson. Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886, 896 (2017). Accordingly, Johnson provides no basis for relief from the Court's application of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). Vaughn's prior conviction for aggravated assault was properly treated as a “crime of violence” under the advisory Guidelines when the Court set a Base Offense Level of 24.

         2. Ineffective ...


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.