United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge United States District
reasons explained in this Entry, the motion of Carlton Lamont
Chaney for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be
denied and the action dismissed with
prejudice. In addition, the Court finds that a certificate of
appealability should not issue.
The § 2255 Motion
convicted petitioner Chaney of armed bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) (count one);
carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (counts 2 and 4); and taking a
motor vehicle by force and intimidation (carjacking), in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) (count 3). A subsequent
jury convicted Mr. Chaney of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
1:97-cr-0068-JMS-TAB-1; see Chaney v. United States,
101 Fed.Appx. 160, 162 (7th Cir. 2004). On March 5, 1998, he
was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 430 months'
Seventh Circuit recounted the application of the Sentencing
Guidelines in Mr. Chaney's criminal case as follows:
In calculating the guideline range for armed bank robbery,
see 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), the district court
increased the offense level by two for obstruction of justice
based upon Chaney's flight from police following the
robbery. In calculating the guideline range for possession of
a firearm by a felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the
district court increased the offense level by four because
Chaney possessed the gun in connection with the Indiana
felony offense of resisting arrest with a firearm because he
waved the gun toward police as he fled, see U.S.S.G. §
2K2.1(b)(5). In addition the court added three levels in
calculating the range for the § 922(g)(1) offense under
the “official victim” guideline, Id.
§ 3A1.2, because Chaney assaulted the officers.
Chaney, 101 Fed.Appx. at 162.
convictions were affirmed on appeal. United States v.
Chaney, No. 98-1655, 165 F.3d 33, 1998 WL 789891 (7th
Cir. Oct. 23, 1998) (unpublished).
Chaney sought relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in
2002 on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds, and again
in 2005 on multiple grounds. Additionally, Mr. Chaney has
filed numerous unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions.
See, e.g., Chaney v. Cross, No. 13-cv-223-CJP, 2014
WL 1041036 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2014); Chaney v. United
States, No. 07-cv-575-MJR, 2008 WL 818565 (S.D. Ill.
Mar. 21, 2008); Chaney v. O'Brien, No.
7:07-cv-00121, 2007 WL 1189641 (W.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2007);
Chaney v. O'Brien, No. 7:06-cv-00120, 2006 WL
4595798 (W.D. Va. Mar. 7, 2006). Most recently, the Southern
District of Illinois denied another § 2241 petition on
November 16, 2017, rejecting Mr. Chaney's claims under
Rosemond v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 1240 (2014).
Chaney v. Cross, 3:15-cv-00211-DRH-CJP, 2017 WL
5483630 (S.D.Ill. Nov. 16, 2017). Mr. Chaney has filed a
notice of appeal in that case.
23, 2016, the Seventh Circuit authorized this successive
motion under § 2255, allowing Mr. Chaney to argue that
he is entitled to relief under Johnson v. United
States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), made retroactive by
Welch v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257
(2016). The United States has responded to Mr.
Chaney's claim, and Mr. Chaney has replied. The action is
ripe for resolution.
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the presumptive
means by which a federal prisoner can challenge his
conviction or sentence. See Davis v. United States,
417 U.S. 333, 343 (1974). A court may grant relief from a
federal conviction or sentence pursuant to § 2255
“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). “Relief under
§ 2255 is available only in extraordinary situations,
such as an error of constitutional or jurisdictional
magnitude or where a fundamental defect has occurred which
results in a complete miscarriage of justice.”
United States v. Coleman, 763 F.3d 706, 708 (7th
Cir. 2014) (internal quotation omitted).
Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e),
“requires longer sentences for persons convicted of
three or more violent felonies or serious drug
offenses.” Stanley v. United States, 827 F.3d
562, 564 (7th Cir. 2016). The Supreme Court held in
Johnson,135 S.Ct. 2551, that the residual clause of
§ 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), which states “or otherwise
involves conduct ...