by Wayne T. Dowdy

This is not intended to be legal advice, but I do not like errors; especially, if I am the one who makes them. When rushing to prepare for sending “Reentering Society” to Midnight Express Books to post for me on the morning of June 6, 2016, I accidentally hit some combination of keys that sent it before I was ready to depart with it. My plan was to go over it one more time to check everything for accuracy and to make corrections.

After I had accidentally sent it, I sent an email to explain what had happened and asked that MEB correct the last sentence and to modify the position of CONCLUSION. And then after sending that email, I had a couple of minutes before the computer kicked me off (we can only use the Public Messaging System for 30-minutes per session and must wait 30-minutes to get back on), so I reread the blog and found other errors. I had to go to work before I could get back on to ask MEB to correct them for me. They corrected the error I emailed them about but had already posted the blog by the time I came in for lunch.

ERROR: I listed the “Johnson” deadline as June 26, 2015, which should have logically been June 26, 2016, since the Supreme Court handed down the decision on June 26, 2015. Federal prisoners have one-year from the date of the decision to file a motion under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 2255, or to file for permission to file a second or successive 2255, the latter of which must go to the appellate court in a motion under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 2244 for permission to file another one.

MORE ERRORS: Then I found other errors in the same paragraph, which is the last one I decided to add that morning (06/06/16). I had and extra “to” in “Now, due to a long shot chance I have of obtaining my own freedom, I must to rush to ….” Of course, most people won’t notice such flaws in their rush to read blogs, but, with me being a writer, I am conscious of what I write and usually edit out errors. I would have done the same with these errors, if not for my computer error.

Another error was where I wrote, “Some Courts are rightfully applying it to other similar provisions in various statutes, such as Title 18, Section 924(c)(2)(B), which is where ‘crime of violence’ is defined and contains similar language, as does the statute for immigration (18 U.S.C., Section 16(b)).” 924(c)(2)(B) is incorrect. It is 924(c)(3)(B) where Congress defined “crime of violence” for violations of Section 924, which is the penalty provisions for firearm offenses.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted a petitioner permission to file a second or successive 2255 concerning a Hobbs Act robbery charge and the consecutive sentence under 924(c)(3)(B). The case title is In re: Ricardo Pinder, Jr., Petitioner, 2016 WL 3081954 (11th Cir., June 1, 2016). The Ninth Circuit and others have applied Johnson to Title 18, Section 16(b). See Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2015); see also United States v. Vivas-Ceja, 2015 BL 421176 (7th Cir. Dec. 22, 2015).

I am now serving the consecutive sentence imposed for my violation of 18 U.S.C., Section 924(c)(1)(A), “Use of a Firearm During the Commission of a Crime of Violence.” Should I convince the courts that it is unconstitutionally vague, I will win my immediate release. That may take months and I may be free before it goes through the process but you can’t win the lottery if you don’t buy the ticket.

Sorry for the errors. I will do better in the future if me and this darn computer can get along better. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.