United States v. Chaney (P)

In 2003, the petitioner agreed to pleaded guilty to carjacking, use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a felon. Under the plea agreement, the government agreed, to dismiss two additional counts and to recommend a downward sentencing adjustment. The petitioner also agreed to waive “the right to contest either the conviction or the sentence in any direct appeal or other post-conviction action, including any proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” He received a 272-months sentence.

In 2012, following our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011), the petitioner moved for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and was partially successful (based in part on the government’s partial waiver of its available defenses under the plea agreement). The district court entered an amended judgment in the petitioner’s criminal case on January 31, 2013, reimposing the 180-month sentence for the petitioner’s carjacking conviction and a consecutive 84-month sentence for his § 924(c) conviction.

In addressing the petitioner’s argument that he was “entitled to be resentenced,” the court rejected that argument based on various applicable provisions of law. However, its analysis didn’t indicate that the court considered itself limited to granting the relief that it entered. It did not abuse its discretion in entering the amended judgment in the form that it did.

Dismissed. Judge Gregory dissented in part.

United States v. Chaney (P), No. 13-6491, Dec. 19, 2018. 4th Cir. (Niemeyer) from WDNC at Charlotte (Cogburn).

Categories: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Opinions, Published


%d bloggers like this: