United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT
KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
convicted Movant Jason Robbins (“Robbins”) of
four firearms violations, and the Court sentenced him to 240
months' imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed. Movant filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1).
before the Court is the Government's motion to lift the
stay and deny Movant's pending § 2255 motion on the
merits (Doc. 34). Because the Supreme Court has recently held
that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a
void-for-vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause,
and Movant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are
meritless, the Government's motion is GRANTED.
Movant's § 2255 motion is DENIED without an
evidentiary hearing, and the Court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability.
underlying convictions stem from two separate incidents.
First, in August of 2009, Kansas City, Missouri, police
arrested Movant for assaulting his girlfriend inside her
home. Movant, a felon, entered her home while armed with a
stolen handgun, took her hostage, and threatened to shoot her
in front of her nine year-old child and her mother. Movant
then forced her to lie on the floor, pointed the gun at the
back of her head for ten to fifteen seconds, picked her up
off the floor by her hair, and finally shoved the handgun
into mouth, damaging her teeth. The second incident occurred
on May 14, 2010, when Kansas City, Missouri, police arrested
Movant while he was fleeing from a stolen car while armed
with a different stolen handgun.
April 4, 2011, a federal grand jury indicted Movant on four
felony charges. Counts I and III charged him with being a
felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); Counts II and IV
charged him with being in possession of a stolen firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2).
Movant pleaded not guilty, declined the Government's plea
offer, and proceeded to trial.
morning of trial, the Court made a record with Movant
regarding the plea offer he declined. Movant confirmed that
the offer was that he would plead guilty to both counts of
being a felon in possession of a weapon. In return, the
Government would dismiss both possession of a stolen firearm
counts and recommend a sentence within the Sentencing
Guidelines range, which the Government and his attorney
anticipated would be between 84 and 112 months'
a three day trial, the jury convicted Movant of all counts on
November 29, 2012.
Probation and Parole office subsequently prepared a
presentence investigation report (“PSR”). Because
Movant had previously been convicted of a crime of violence,
resisting arrest by fleeing, the PSR calculated a base
offense level of 20 pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
2K2.1(a)(4)(A). The PSR applied a two-level enhancement
because the firearms were stolen and a four-level enhancement
because Movant committed the offense in connection with
another felony. The PSR also calculated a Category VI
criminal history. This yielded a Sentencing Guidelines range
of 120 to 150 months' imprisonment. The statutory maximum
sentence was 120 months' imprisonment on each count.
Government filed a memorandum asking the Court to impose
consecutive sentences because of Movant's extensive
criminal history, the violence of the offenses, and the
impact on his victims.
outset of the sentencing hearing, the Court carefully
calculated Movant's Guideline range. After granting some
of Movant's objections, the Court calculated a Guideline
range of 110 to 137 months' imprisonment. The Court then
heard victim impact testimony from Movant's former
girlfriend, who described the effects the crime had on
herself and her child. The Court carefully considered all the
relevant factors, including Movant's extensive criminal
history and history of violence towards others, and decided
to vary upward. The Court imposed 120 months'
imprisonment on Counts I and III and 120 months'
imprisonment on Counts II and IV, for an aggregate sentence
of 240 months.
appealed, arguing the Court erred at sentencing by failing to
adequately explain why it imposed consecutive sentences.
United States v. Robbins, 554 F. App'x 543,
543-44 (8th Cir. 2014). The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Id. at 544.
collaterally attacked his conviction by timely filing the
pending § 2255 motion on March 25, 2015. The Court
withheld ruling while awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling
in Beckles v. United States. ...