Lujan-Carpio v. USA
Filing
3
ORDER Dismissing Defendant's Motions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence and Denying Certificate of Appealability. Petition to Vacate under 28 USC 2255. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 9/21/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
Case Nos.: 12CR4302-JLS
14CV2171-JLS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
FRANCISCO LUJAN-CARPIO,
ORDER DISMISSING
DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS UNDER
28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE, SET
ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE
and DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
Defendant.
13
14
15
16
On September 11, 2014, Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for Time
17
Reduction by an Inmate in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 28). On
18
April 25, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or
19
Correct Sentence by Person in Federal Custody (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff has not filed a
20
response to either motion.
21
Defendant’s first motion was filed more than one year after his conviction became
22
final1 and is therefore untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). Defendant has not
23
alleged or demonstrated that any of the alternative limitation periods set forth in Section
24
2255(f) are applicable with respect to this motion.
25
26
27
28
1
Defendant was sentenced on February 22, 2013 and he filed no notice of appeal. Thus, his conviction
became final 14 days later. See United States v. Schwartz, 274 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001)
(recognizing that statute of limitations for § 2255 motion began to run upon the expiration of the time
during which the defendant could have sought review by direct appeal).
1
12CR4302-JLS
14CV2171-JLS
1
Defendant contends that his second motion, filed on April 25, 2016, is timely
2
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3)2 in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551
3
(2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause of the Armed
4
Career Criminal Act (AACCA@) as unconstitutionally vague.
5
Defendant contends that Johnson announced a new rule rendering his sentence
6
enhancement for a crime of violence pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline
7
Section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) void or unconstitutional. This argument, however, is
8
foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886
9
(2017). In Beckles, the Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a
10
void for vagueness challenge. 137 S.Ct. at 896. Therefore, Johnson is not applicable in
11
this case and thus cannot serve to extend the limitations period under 28 U.S.C. §
12
2255(f)(3).
13
Accordingly, the Court finds both motions filed by Defendant to be time-barred
14
under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f). Defendant’s Motion for Time Reduction by an Inmate in
15
Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 28) and Motion under 28 U.S.C. §
16
2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by Person in Federal Custody (ECF No.
17
30) are Hereby Dismissed. Additionally, the Court Denies Defendant a certificate of
18
appealability, as Defendant has not made a substantial showing that he has been denied a
19
constitutional right.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
Dated: September 21, 2017
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
28
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) proscribes a one year period of limitation from “the date on which the right
asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the
Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.”
2
12CR4302-JLS
14CV2171-JLS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?