United States v. Wood
| Decision Date | 17 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 19-84,Criminal No. 16-35 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CLIFFORD WOOD, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
(DOC. 112), AND AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (DOC. 129)
Pending are: (1) Defendant Clifford Wood's original pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, remanded to this Court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to consider Defendant's argument under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) ("Rehaif") ("Original Section 2255 Motion") (Doc. 112); and (2) Defendant's pro se Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Amended Section 2255 Motion"), which also is premised upon the Supreme Court's Rehaif decision (Doc. 129) (collectively "Defendant's Section 2255 Motions").
In Rehaif, the Supreme Court "conclude[d] that in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and § 924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm." Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2200.
A criminal Complaint was filed against Defendant on February 19, 2016. (Doc. 1). Thereafter, on February 23, 2016, Defendant was charged in a one-count Indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm, namely a Ruger Security Six .357 revolver, on or about February 18, 2016, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). (Doc. 5). Listed in the Indictment were three Pennsylvania state court convictions upon which the federal court, felon in possession of a weapon, charge was based; all three state court convictions were for drug trafficking crimes. (Doc. 5). On March 10, 2016, Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges contained in the Indictment. (Doc. 16).
On November 29, 2016, shortly after the start of Defendant's trial, pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). (Doc. 84). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, Defendant's sentence would depend on whether or not the Court determined that Defendant had "3 previous convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses or both" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The parties agreed that if the Court determined that Defendant had three previous convictions "for violent felonies or serious drug offenses or both," then the appropriate sentence was a term of imprisonment of fifteen years/180 months. The plea agreement also contained a provision whereby Defendant agreed to waive his right to direct appeal, subject to three exceptions not relevant to the pending motions. Defendant did not waive his right to file a collateral appeal.
On March 30, 2017, the Court issued Tentative Findings and Rulings, wherein it concluded that Defendant's three prior Pennsylvania state court convictions at Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County docket numbers CP-02-CR-0014759-2005, CP-02-CR-000445-2006,and CP-02-CR-0008167-2006, qualified "as 'controlled substance offenses' and are predicate offenses to the ACCA." (Doc. 100 at 4).
On April 7, 2017, the Court accepted the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, and sentenced Defendant to 180 months' imprisonment. (Doc. 102). Absent this plea agreement, Defendant's advisory guidelines sentencing range would have been 188-235 months, as Defendant's offense level was a 31 and his criminal history category a VI. (Doc. 90). Had Defendant gone to trial, and been convicted, his advisory guidelines sentencing range would have been 262 - 327 months as Defendant's offense level would have been a 34 and his criminal history category a VI. U.S.S.G., Chapter 5.
On April 19, 2017, Defendant appealed the judgment of conviction. (Doc. 103). On September 18, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit enforced the appellate waiver contained in Defendant's plea agreement, and summarily affirmed Defendant's conviction. Defendant's request for a rehearing, and for a rehearing en banc were denied, and on October 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued, in lieu of a mandate, a certified copy of the September 18, 2017 order affirming Defendant's conviction. (Doc. 108). Defendant then filed a request for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on February 20, 2018. See U.S. v. Wood, 138 S. Ct. 1031 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2018).
On January 25, 2019, Defendant filed his Original Section 2255 Motion. (Doc. 112). On April 23, 2019, this Court denied Defendant's Original Section 2255 Motion, and determined that because Defendant had failed to make a "substantial showing" of the denial of a constitutional right, no certificate of appealability would be issued. (Doc. 122, Doc. 123).
In his Original Section 2255 Motion, Defendant stated the following:
The United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Rehaif v. United States, 2019 U.S. Lexis 573 (Jan. 11, 2019), addressing whether the "knowing"element attaches to all of elements of § 922(g)(1) except for the commerce element. This case will provide for an additional arguments (sic.) when released and will be argued either as a freestanding (sic.) claim or under the guise of ineffective assistance (sic.) of counsel.
(Doc. 112 at 15). In deciding, and denying, Defendant's Original Section 2255 Motion, because Defendant was not making a current argument with respect to the "knowing" issue raised in the Rehaif litigation, the Court neither mentioned nor analyzed the potential applicability of the issue to Defendant's case.
Defendant appealed the Court's denial of his Original Section 2255 Motion to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and while Defendant's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Rehaif. Defendant then filed an application for a certificate of appealability and supplement with the appellate court, arguing that the Supreme Court's Rehaif decision affected the validity of his conviction. In response thereto, the Government filed a motion for summary remand so that this Court could consider whether the Rehaif decision affects the validity of Defendant's conviction.
On February 27, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted Defendant's application for a certificate of appealability only as to the Rehaif issue raised in Defendant's Original Section 2255 Motion, and granted the Government's motion for summary remand "to the District Court to consider Wood's argument under Rehaif v. United States." (Doc. 126 at 2). However, prior to the Court of Appeals issuing its mandate, Defendant filed his Amended Section 2255 Motion. (Doc. 129).
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's Mandate with respect to Defendant's Original Section 2255 Motion, was filed on March 30, 2020. (Doc. 130).
On November 15, 2019, while this matter was on appeal, Chief Judge Hornak of this Court had issued an Administrative Order, filed at Misc. No. 19-1195, whereby he ordered, "thatthe Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Pennsylvania is appointed to represent any defendant who was previously determined to be entitled to appointment of counsel, or who is now indigent, to determine whether that defendant may qualify for federal habeas relief under either 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in light of Rehaif, and to present any petitions, motions or applications relating thereto to the Court for disposition." Accordingly, consistent with Administrative Order Misc. No. 19-1195, on March 31, 2020, this Court appointed counsel for Defendant with respect to his Section 2255 Motions. (Doc. 131).
On June 4, 2020, Defendant filed a brief in support of Defendant's Section 2255 Motions. (Doc. 138).
On August 13, 2020, the Government filed its response in opposition to Defendant's Section 2255 Motions. (Doc. 141).
On February 3, 2021, Defendant filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority; said supplemental authority is the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States v. Nasir, 982 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2020) ("Nasir").1 (Doc. 142).
On February 18, 2021, the Government filed the "United States Response to Notice of Supplemental Authority." (Doc. 148).
On February 25, 2021, Defendant filed a "Reply to Government's Response to Defendant Wood's Notice of Supplemental Authority." (Doc. 149).
Thus, the parties have fully briefed Defendant's Section 2255 Motions, and Defendant's Section 2255 Motions are ripe for adjudication.
Section 2255 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released 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, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
Whether to conduct a hearing with respect to a Section 2255 motion is within the sound discretion of the District Court. United States v. Lilly, 536 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir. 2008); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 41 (3d Cir. 1992) (quoting Government of the Virgin Islands v. Forte, 865 F.2d 59, 62 (3d Cir. 1989)). In exercising that discretion, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial