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.

Chaney v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

April 16, 2018

CARLTON LAMONT CHANEY, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          ENTRY DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge United States District Court.

         For the 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.

         I. The § 2255 Motion

         Background

         A jury 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' imprisonment. Id.

         The 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.

         His 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).

         Mr. 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.

         On June 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).[1] The United States has responded to Mr. Chaney's claim, and Mr. Chaney has replied. The action is ripe for resolution.

         Discussion

         A 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).

         The 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 ...


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.