United States v. William Davis ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-7051
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    WILLIAM THOMAS DAVIS, a/k/a Burglar,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.    Frederick P. Stamp,
    Jr., Senior District Judge.  (5:08-cr-00021-FPS-JSK-1; 5:13-cv-
    00116-FPS-JSK)
    Submitted:   December 28, 2015            Decided:   December 30, 2015
    Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Thomas Davis, Appellant Pro Se.       David J. Perri,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    William Thomas Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.                          Among other things,
    Davis    claimed    that    it     was    constitutional         error       to    apply    the
    residual    clause    of     the    Armed    Career        Criminal        Act     (ACCA)    to
    enhance his sentence and that the residual clause of the ACCA
    was unconstitutionally vague.                After the district court denied
    Davis’     § 2255    motion,       the    Supreme       Court    decided          Johnson   v.
    United States, 
    135 S. Ct. 2551
    (2015), holding that the residual
    clause of the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague.
    We   previously       ordered       further       briefing      from     the      parties
    pursuant to 4th Cir. R. 22(a)(4).                     Based on these briefs and our
    independent review of the record, we grant Davis a certificate
    of   appealability     on    the     issue       of    whether       the   district      court
    erred in denying the above-referenced claims, and we remand for
    reconsideration of Davis’ § 2255 motion in light of Johnson.
    Accordingly,      we       vacate    the        district       court’s      order     and
    remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.                                We
    dispense     with    oral     argument       because           the    facts       and    legal
    contentions    are    adequately          presented       in    the    materials         before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-7051

Judges: Wynn, Diaz, Davis

Filed Date: 12/30/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024