From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Randolph v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Nov 6, 2013
Civil No. CCB-13-1227 (D. Md. Nov. 6, 2013)

Opinion

Civil No. CCB-13-1227 Criminal No. CCB-09-0244

11-06-2013

MARK LINN RANDOLPH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


MEMORANDUM

Mark Linn Randolph, a federal prison inmate, filed a timely motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion shall be denied.

Randolph pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base under an agreement that stipulated to a sentence of no less than 60 and no more than 151 months incarceration. He was found to be a career offender with a guideline range of 151-188 months, based in part on convictions for assault under Maryland law, despite his counsel's argument to the contrary. Nonetheless, the court granted a variant sentence of 108 months, within the agreed range, after considering the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Randolph's serious criminal history even apart from the career offender designation and his level of culpability in the drug conspiracy.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed that finding. 444 Fed. App'x 682 (4th Cir. 2011).

Clearly, counsel was not ineffective regarding the career offender status. He argued against the designation but was not successful in the Fourth Circuit. The law has changed in both the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court since 2011. See Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013); United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2012). The Supreme Court has not, however, indicated that Descamps applies retroactively to cases on collateral appeal, and this court is not aware of any circuit court opinion so holding. In any event, Randolph has not been prejudiced because the sentence was not based on his career offender status. The same sentence would have been imposed because of his lengthy criminal record and culpability for the offense, even if he were not a career offender. (See Sent'g Tr., ECF No. 325-2, at 61-67.)

Accordingly, a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) will not be issued and the motion to vacate will be denied by separate Order which follows.

_______________

Catherine C. Blake

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Randolph v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Nov 6, 2013
Civil No. CCB-13-1227 (D. Md. Nov. 6, 2013)
Case details for

Randolph v. United States

Case Details

Full title:MARK LINN RANDOLPH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Date published: Nov 6, 2013

Citations

Civil No. CCB-13-1227 (D. Md. Nov. 6, 2013)

Citing Cases

Wilkens v. United States

ates Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 45. The Fourth Circuit granted…

Valencia-Mazariegos v. United States

Contrary to Valencia- Mazariegos's assertion, the Supreme Court has not declared its decision in Descamps to…