United States v. Boykins
This text of United States v. Boykins (United States v. Boykins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) Crim. No. 18-cr-219 (ESH) ) AUSTIN PIERRE BOYKINS, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Austin Pierre Boykins was convicted of one count of using, carrying, or
possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). (See
Judgment, ECF No. 37.) He was sentenced to a 60-month term of imprisonment, to be followed
by a 60-month term of supervised release. (Id.)
Proceeding pro se, defendant has filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate,
set aside or correct his sentence in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States
v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). (See Def.’s 2255 Mot., Nov. 5, 2019, ECF No. 39.) The
government opposes defendant’s motion on the ground that Davis does not apply to defendant’s
conviction. (Gov’t Opp., ECF No. 41.) The government is correct, so defendant’s motion will
be denied.
Section 924(c)(1) makes it a crime to use, carry, or possess a firearm in connection with
either a “drug trafficking crime” or a “crime of violence.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Section
924(c)(2) defines what constitutes a “drug trafficking crime,” while 924(c)(3) defines what
constitutes a “crime of violence.” In Davis, the Supreme Court held that the “residual clause” in the definition of a “crime of violence” was void for vagueness. 139 S. Ct. at 2325-27.1 But here
defendant was convicted of using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking
offense, not during a crime of violence. (See Judgment at 1.) Thus, Davis has no effect on the
validity of his conviction.
As Davis does not affect the validity of defendant’s § 924(c) conviction, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant’s § 2255 motion, ECF No. 39, is DENIED; it is further
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability will not be issued; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall close the corresponding Civil Action, 19-cv-3469.
_______________________ ELLEN S. HUVELLE United States District Judge DATE: January 8, 2020
1 In § 924(c), a “crime of violence” is defined as “an offense that is a felony” and
(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) (emphasis added to “residual clause”). 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Boykins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-boykins-dcd-2020.