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.

United States v. Dawson

United States District Court, D. Oregon

February 27, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY KANA DAWSON, Petitioner-Defendant.

          Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney and Jennifer Martin, Assistant United States Attorney, District of Oregon, Of Attorneys for Plaintiff.

          Stephen R. Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Defender and Elizabeth G. Daily, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office For The District Of Oregon, Of Attorneys for Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge

         Before the Court is Timothy Kana Dawson's motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to vacate his 60-month mandatory consecutive sentence imposed for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). (Count 2, Case No. 3:03-cr-410). For the reasons given below, his motion is denied.

         STANDARDS

         Section 2255 permits a prisoner in custody under sentence to move the court that imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence on the ground that:

[T]he 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).

         Under Section 2255, “a district court must grant a hearing to determine the validity of a petition brought under that section ‘[u]nless the motions and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.'” United States v. Baylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1994) (emphasis in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). A motion pursuant to § 2255 must be filed within one year from the date on which a petitioner's conviction becomes final, unless an exception applies. Id. § 2255(f)(1). One exception provides that a motion is timely if (1) it “assert[s] . . . [a] right . . . newly recognized by the Supreme Court, ” id. § 2255(f)(3), (2) it is filed within one year from “the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, ” id. § 2255(f)(3), and (3) the Supreme Court or controlling Court of Appeals has declared the right retroactively applicable on collateral review, Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 358-59 (2005). Only the Supreme Court may “recognize” a new right under § 2255(f)(3). Dodd, 545 U.S. at 357-59. In order to show that his or her claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, a movant must show that “(1) he or she was sentenced in violation of the Constitution and that (2) the particular constitutional rule that was violated is ‘new, ' [and] was ‘previously unavailable'” United States v. Geozos, 870 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2017).

         BACKGROUND

         On February 24, 2005, Dawson pleaded guilty to one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) (Count 1 in Case No. 3:04-cr-010), four counts of unarmed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (Counts 2 through 4 in Case No. 3:04-cr-010 and Count 1 in Case No. 3:03-cr-410), one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(a) (Count 2 in Case No. 3:03-cr-410), and one count of escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (Count 1 of the information in Case No. 3:05-cr-073). On November 1, 2005, Dawson was sentenced to five concurrent sentences of 202 months for each of the substantive robbery offenses, a concurrent 60-month sentence for the escape charge, and a mandatory consecutive sentence of 60 months for the § 924(c) violation.

         DISCUSSION

         Dawson argues that he is entitled to resentencing on two independent grounds. First, Dawson argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (Johnson II), invalidated his mandatory consecutive sentence under § 924(c). Second, Dawson argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Dean v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1170 (2017), entitles him to a new sentencing hearing in which the sentencing judge has discretion to consider the suitability of his aggregate sentence.

         A. Relief ...


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.