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.

Roundtree v. United States

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

February 13, 2019

JEFFREY ROUNDTREE, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

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

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct a Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Petitioner Jeffrey Roundtree (“Roundtree”). For the reasons explained in this Order, the motion is DENIED and this action is dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue.

         I. SECTION 2255 MOTION STANDARDS

         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 this statute 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.” Blake v. United States, 723 F.3d 870, 878-79 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Prewitt v. United States, 83 F.3d 812, 816 (7th Cir. 1996); Barnickel v. United States, 113 F.3d 704, 705 (7th Cir. 1997)).

         II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         From March 23, 2007 to May 8, 2007, Roundtree participated in 11 robberies in the Indianapolis area. He was charged in a 12-count Indictment with six counts of affecting commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11) and six counts of brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12). United States v. Banks et al., No. 1:07-cr-00164-TWP-TAB-2 (“Crim. Dkt.”), Dkt. 34.

         In 2008, Roundtree plead guilty to Counts 2 and 4 of the Indictment pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement. Crim. Dkt. 60. On March 13, 2008, the Court accepted Roundtree's plea of guilty to two counts of brandishing a firearm during a robbery (Counts 2 and 4). Crim. Dkt. 64. He was sentenced to 300 months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised release. Crim. Dkt. 130. Roundtree did not file a direct appeal.

         In 2015, the United States Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”)[1] was unconstitutionally vague. Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2563 (2015). Applying Johnson, the Seventh Circuit also found that the residual clauses defining “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and “violent felony” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)[2] were unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Vivas-Ceja, 808 F.3d 719, 721 (7th Cir. 2015) (18 U.S.C. § 16(b)); United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d 959, 996 (7th Cir. 2016) (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)). In 2018, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 1212, 1223, (2018).

         On June 24, 2016, Roundtree filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to Johnson but later voluntarily dismissed the motion. See Roundtree v. United States, No. 1:16-cv-1663-LJM-DKL (S.D. Ind. May 11, 2017). On June 28, 2017, he filed a § 2255 motion that was dismissed as successive. See Roundtree v. United States, No. 1:17-cv-2223-LJM-DML (S.D. Ind. August 1, 2017).

         On February 20, 2018, Roundtree filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of Illinois challenging his sentence pursuant to Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016); Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013); and Dean v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1170 (2017). See Roundtree v. Warden, No. 3:18-cv-508 (S.D. Ill. 2018). The Southern District of Illinois dismissed his claim finding that § 2241 was not the appropriate vehicle for raising his arguments.

         On July 2, 2018, Roundtree filed a motion for writ of audita querela. Crim. Dkt. 154. The Court construed his motion to be a motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and opened this action. Crim. Dkt. 156. The Court further determined that Roundtree's current § 2255 motion was not successive because his first § 2255 motion was voluntarily dismissed without final judgment. Dkt. 1 at 1.

         III. DISCUSSION

         Roundtree seeks relief pursuant to § 2255 arguing that Hobbs Act Robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), is not a crime of violence post-Dimaya and cannot serve as a predicate offense for a 924(c) conviction.

         Roundtree's arguments regarding Hobbs Act robbery are foreclosed by Seventh Circuit precedent.[3] The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly held that Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence under the force clause of § 924. United States v. Anglin, 846 F.3d 954, 965 (7th Cir. 2017) (“Hobbs Act robbery is a ‘crime of violence' within the meaning of § 92[4](c)(3)(A).”), vacated on other grounds, Anglin v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 126 (2017); United States v. Fox, 878 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2017) (“We reaffirm today that Hobbs Act robberies are crimes of violence under Section 924(c)(3)(A).”); see also United States v. Rivera, 847 F.3d 847, 849 (7th Cir. 2017) (holding that the Supreme Court's ...


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.