United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
matter is before the Court on the Motion to Correct Sentence
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed by Martin Anaya
(“Anaya”) on June 27, 2016 (DE #1307). For the
reasons set forth below, the motion is
found Anaya guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering
activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Count 1)
and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine and 1000 kilograms or more of
marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 2).
This court determined that Anaya was a career offender under
United States Sentencing Guideline section 4B1.1. He was
sentenced to 240 months of incarceration on Count One and 360
months of incarceration on Count Two, to be served
the Supreme Court of the United States analyzed whether the
residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act
(“ACCA”) is void for vagueness. Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). As Justice Scalia
Under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, a defendant
convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm faces
more severe punishment if he has three or more previous
convictions for a “violent felony, ” a term
defined to include any felony that “involves conduct
that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to
another.” 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(2)(B). We must decide
whether this part of the definition of a violent felony
survives the Constitution's prohibition of vague criminal
Id. at 2555. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that
“imposing an increased sentence under the residual
clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the
Constitution's guarantee of due process.”
Id. at 2563. It therefore overruled its prior
decision in Sykes v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2267
(2011), and held that the residual clause of the definition
of violent felony in the ACCA was unconstitutionally vague.
Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2563. The Johnson
decision is retroactive on both direct appeal and collateral
review. Price v. United States, 795 F.3d 731, 732
(7th Cir. 2015).
this Court found Anaya was a career offender under Guideline
section 4B1.1, Anaya was not sentenced as an armed career
criminal under the ACCA. Accordingly, Anaya's
Johnson argument can only prevail if the decision in
Johnson is applicable to the similar language of the
Guidelines under which Anaya was sentenced.
March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Beckles v.
United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017). The Court
in Beckles determined that the holding in
Johnson did not extent to the Guideline provision
under which Anaya was found to be a career offender. As the
Unlike the ACCA, however, the advisory Guidelines do not fix
the permissible range of sentences. To the contrary, they
merely guide the exercise of a court's discretion in
choosing an appropriate sentence within the statutory range.
Accordingly, the Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness
challenge under the Due Process Clause. The residual clause
in 4B1.2(a)(2) therefore is not void for vagueness.
Id. at 892. In light of Beckles, the
Court's ruling in Johnson is inapplicable to
Anaya, and his Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (DE #1307) is DENIED.
Johnson had been extended to Guideline section
4B1.1, Anaya's motion would still fail. Under the
particular facts of his case, despite the finding that he was
a career offender, the designation did not alter his
to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, a
district court must “issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant.” A certificate of appealability 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). To make such a showing, a defendant must
show that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,
for that matter, agree that) the motion should have been
resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented
were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 475
(U.S. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Anaya has not stated any grounds for relief under section
2255. The Court finds no basis for a determination that
reasonable jurists would find this decision debatable or
incorrect or that the issues deserve encouragement to proceed
further. Therefore, the Court DECLINES to
issue a certificate of appealability.
Clerk is ORDERED to DISMISS
this civil action WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk
is FURTHER ORDERED to distribute a copy of
this order to Petitioner (Inmate Reg. No. 11317-027), Pekin
FCI, Federal Correctional Institution, Inmate Mail/Parcels,
P.C. Box 5000, Pekin, IL ...