19-3479 Allen v. United States UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 9th day of December, two thousand twenty. Present: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ DERRICK ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. 19-3479 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. _____________________________________ For Petitioner-Appellant: MALVINA NATHANSON, New York, NY. For Respondent-Appellee: NATHANIEL J. GENTILE (Marc H. Silverman on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT. 1 Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Chatigny, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Petitioner Derrick Allen (“Allen”) appeals from a September 26, 2019 order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Chatigny, J.) denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Allen argues—and the Government does not dispute—that he was sentenced to a mandatory minimum prison term of fifteen years under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). The ACCA sentencing enhancement is applicable when the defendant has prior convictions for three or more violent felonies or serious drug offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The Supreme Court has since held that clause of the ACCA to be unconstitutionally vague. See Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 606 (2015). Allen argues that, as a result, he no longer qualifies for the mandatory minimum of fifteen years. In particular, while he admits that he has two prior convictions for serious drug offenses, he claims that he has never been convicted of a “violent felony” within the meaning of the ACCA’s so-called “elements clause,” which defines a violent felony as one that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). The statutory maximum sentence for the offense Allen was convicted of, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is ten years, and he argues that his sentence should not have been enhanced under the ACCA. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). For its part, the Government claims that the instant ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals