Jesus Izquierdo v. USA

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jesus Izquierdo. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-16086

Date Filed: 06/15/2017

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16086
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:16-cv-22728-KMM,
1:08-cr-20273-KMM-1
JESUS IZQUIERDO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 15, 2017)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-16086

Date Filed: 06/15/2017

Page: 2 of 2

Jesus Izquierdo appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence. 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f). Izquierdo argued that, under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015), the district court violated his due process rights by increasing his
sentence under the residual clause of the career offender provision of the United
States Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). The district court ruled that
Izquierdo’s argument “fail[ed] as a matter of law” based on United States v.
Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1194‒95 (11th Cir. 2015), and denied it as untimely. We
affirm the denial of Izquierdo’s motion on the ground that it failed on the merits.
The district court correctly ruled that Johnson did not affect Izquierdo’s
sentence under the Guidelines. After Izquierdo appealed, the Supreme Court held
in Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), as we had in Matchett, that “the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the
Due Process Clause and that § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause is not void for
vagueness.” Beckles, 137 S. Ct. at 895. Beckles confirms that Johnson did not
affect the validity of Izquierdo’s sentence.
We AFFIRM the denial of Izquierdo’s motion to vacate.

2