NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0509n.06
Case Nos. 14-3956/3964
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Jul 20, 2015
) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
) THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
DESEAN R. HARBIN, ) OHIO
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
)
ORDER
Before: SILER, COOK, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. At Desean Harbin’s sentencing, the district court applied the career
offender enhancement, USSG § 4B1.1. The issue before this court is whether Harbin’s prior
burglary conviction constitutes a “crime of violence” under the residual clause of the career
offender enhancement, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2). In Johnson v. United States, No. 13-7120, 2015
WL 2473450, at *4–5 (U.S. June 26, 2015), the Supreme Court held that the identically worded
residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is void for vagueness. Compare
USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), with 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). We have interpreted both residual
clauses identically. See United States v. Ford, 560 F.3d 420, 421 (6th Cir. 2009); United States
v. Houston, 187 F.3d 593, 594–95 (6th Cir. 1999). Following Johnson, the Supreme Court has
vacated the sentences of offenders who were sentenced under the residual clause of the
Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Maldonado, 581 F. App’x 19, 22–23 (2d Cir. 2014),
Case Nos. 14-3956/3964, United States v. Harbin
vacated, No. 14-7445, 2015 WL 2473524, at *1 (U.S. June 30, 2015); Beckles v. United States,
579 F. App’x 833, 833–34 (11th Cir. 2014), vacated, No. 14-7390, 2015 WL 2473527, at *1
(U.S. June 30, 2015); see also Wynn v. United States, No 14-9634, 2015 WL 2095652, at *1
(U.S. June 30, 2015) (vacating a Sixth Circuit order, which denied habeas relief based on a
predicate offense qualifying under the residual clause of the career offender enhancement).
Accordingly, Harbin is entitled to the same relief as offenders sentenced under the residual
clause of the ACCA. See United States v. Darden, No. 14-5537 (6th Cir. Jul. 6, 2015) (per
curiam).
For these reasons, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for
reconsideration in light of Johnson.
-2-