Logan v. USA - 2255

• Court: District Court, D. Maryland
• Decided: September 21, 2023
• Docket: 8:20-cv-01468
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ROBERT CHARLES LOGAN, * * Civil Action No. 20-cv-1468-PX * Criminal Action No. 13-cr-339-PX v. * * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * * * *** MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court is Petitioner Robert Charles Logan’s motion to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 83. The issues are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary. See D. Md. Loc. R. 105.6. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED. On June 26, 2013, Logan was charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). ECF No. 1. He pleaded guilty to this offense on June 23, 2014. ECF No. 34. Logan was sentenced on December 2, 2014, to 33 months imprisonment. ECF No. 47. On April 8, 2019, Logan pleaded guilty to violating the conditions of his supervised release, as well as to a Superseding Information in Criminal Action No. 18-cr-618, charging him with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. ECF No. 75. He was sentenced on July 18, 2019, to 24 months imprisonment for the violation of supervised release, to run consecutively to the 24-month term of imprisonment imposed in Case No. 18-cr-618. ECF No. 79; No. 18-cr-618, ECF No. 30. On June 2, 2020, Logan moved to vacate his Section 922(g) conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 83. Logan seeks to vacate his conviction based on United States v. Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), and United States v. Gary, 954 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2020). In Rehaif, the Supreme Court held that, “in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and § 924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.” Rehaif, 139

S. Ct. at 2200. Interpreting Rehaif, the Fourth Circuit in Gary held that where the Government fails to inform a defendant of its requirement to prove this mens rea element of the offense, the Government’s error is structural and entitles a defendant to automatic vacatur of the Section 922(g) conviction. Gary, 954 F.3d at 205–07. Rehaif and Gary marked a departure from previous Fourth Circuit precedent that did not view a defendant’s knowledge of his own prohibited status as an element of an offense under Section 922(g). See United States v. Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995). Logan now contends that he is entitled to vacatur of his conviction because the Government, which prosecuted this case prior to Rehaif and Gary, failed to inform him of its requirement to prove mens rea as to his felony status, and thus his plea was not knowing and voluntary. ECF No. 83 at 2.

Subsequent to the filing of this motion, however, the Supreme Court reversed Gary in Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021), concluding that Rehaif errors are not structural errors requiring automatic vacatur. Rather, a defendant must satisfy the “plain-error” test and show that the Government’s failure to comply with Rehaif affected his “substantial rights,” or that there was a “reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 2096. This requires the defendant to make “a sufficient argument or representation on appeal that he would have presented evidence at trial that he did not in fact know” he had been convicted of a crime punishable by greater than one year imprisonment, and that this evidence would have been sufficient to raise a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty. Id. at 2100. In this regard, the defendant “faces an uphill climb in trying to satisfy the substantial-rights prong of the plain-error test” given that persons “ordinarily” know of their having sustained a felony offense. Id. at 2097. Logan has not demonstrated that he was unaware of his felony status at the time he

possessed the firearm. This is especially notable given that Logan had previously sustained more than one felony conviction. Thus, he has not shown a reasonable probability that he would not have entered a guilty plea had he been informed about the Government’s burden to prove the knowledge element of the offense. See United States v. Bailey, No. DKC-20-1372, 2022 WL 1027771, at *2 (D. Md. Apr. 6, 2022); United States v. Watts, No. PJM-20-1596, 2022 WL 1322658, at *3 (D. Md. May 3, 2022). Accordingly, Logan’s Motion to Vacate is denied. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court is also required to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the petitioner. A certificate of appealability is a “jurisdictional

prerequisite” to an appeal from the court’s order, United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 659 (4th Cir. 2007), and may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where the court denies the petitioner’s motion on its merits, a petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003). Logan does not satisfy this standard. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not issue. For the foregoing reasons, Logan’s motion to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied.1 A separate Order follows.

9/21/2023 /S/ Date Paula Xinis United States District Judge

1 The Court also grants the motion to withdraw filed by Logan’s counsel. ECF No. 84.