Stanley v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his 200-month term of incarceration on crack distribution charge that was based, in part, on finding that defendant was career offender under section 4B1.1 of USSG, even though defendant argued that he did not qualify for such adverse treatment under recent decision in Johnson, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (which found that residual clause contained in Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutional), because he no longer had three prior violent felony convictions under Johnson to support his career offender status. Record showed that defendant’s prior drug conviction qualified as violent felony, and that although his prior unlawful possession of firearm conviction did not qualify as violent felony, he could not challenge prior finding that said conviction qualified as violent felony since: (1) defendant never filed direct appeal that challenged imposition of his sentence; (2) Johnson Ct. did not address issue regarding whether defendant’s unlawful possession of firearm qualified as violent felony; and (3) defendant could not use Ct.’s decision in Johnson to seek what would otherwise be untimely habeas relief to challenge finding that unlawful possession of firearm conviction qualified as violent felony. Ct. similarly noted that defendant could not use instant habeas petition to challenge finding that his prior conviction for aggravated battery of peace officer qualified as violent felony under elements clause of section 4B1.2(a)(1) since Johnson decision did not pertain to such finding.