Nunez-Duenas v. USA
Filing
2
ORDER Denying Petition to Vacate under 28 USC 2255. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 4/8/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)
I
-
.
1
APR 0 8 2019
2
sour~Jk8r'.i ~,s f~STRICT COURT
3
BY
ICT OF CALIFORNIA
DEPUTY
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
JORGE NUNEZ-DUENAS,
Movant,
12
13
v.
14
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
15
Respondent.
Case No.: 16-cv-1589-BEN
04-cr-2303-BEN
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR
CORRECT A SENTENCE UNDER
28 u.s.c. § 2255
16
17
Movant Jorge Nunez-Duenas filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a
18
Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Respondent, the United States opposes the
19
motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.
20
21
BACKGROUND
In 2004, Nunez-Duenas was charged with the crime of illegal entry into the United
22
States. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced. The sentence was 48 months in prison in
23
January 2005. As part of his plea agreement and during the sentencing, Nunez-Duenas
24
waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence. In June 2016, he filed the
25
instant motion for collateral relief under§ 2255.
26
27
Under § 2255, a movant is entitled to relief if the sentence: (1) was imposed in
violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States; (2) was given by a court
28
16-cv-1589-BEN
04-cr-2303-BEN
1
without jurisdiction to do so; (3) was in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by
2
law; or (4) is otherwise subject to collateral attack. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
3
DISCUSSION
4
The motion fails on several grounds. First, Movant validly waived his right to
5
collaterally attack his sentence. The record discloses no issues as to the voluntariness of
6
the plea and waiver. Second, under § 2255(f), the motion is untimely as it was filed more
7
than twelve months after his conviction became final. Here, the motion is untimely and
8
is barred by the statute of limitations. Third, contrary to his contentions, Movant's
9
sentence was not unconstitutionally enhanced under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
10
2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court considered language in the Armed Career
11
Criminal Act ("ACCA"). The Supreme Court examined the definition of"violent
12
felony" and held that a portion of that definition known as the "residual clause" is void
13
for vagueness. However, Movant was not sentenced under the residual clause of the
14
violent felony definition of the ACCA. Rather, he was sentenced pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
15
§ 3553 as guided by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines§ 2Ll.2(b). Reading the motion
16
liberally, when it was still an open question, Movant challenged the U.S. Sentencing
17
Guidelines as unconstitutionally vague based on the same reasoning as Johnson.
18
However, since the motion was filed, the Supreme Court has rejected the argument in
19
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), holding that the federal Sentencing
20
Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.
21
Therefore, the motion is denied because: (1) Movant validly waived his right to
22
collateral attack; (2) the motion is barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) the motion
23
is without merit.
24
CONCLUSION
25
The Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence is DENIED.
26
A court may issue a certificate of appealability where the movant has made a
27
"substantial showing of the denial ofa constitutional right," and reasonable jurists could
28
debate whether the motion should have been resolved differently, or that the issues
2
16-cv-1589-BEN
04-cr-2303-BEN
1
presented deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
2
322, 335 (2003). This Court finds that Movant has not made the necessary showing. A
3
certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.
4
5
6
Dated:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16-cv-1589-BEN
04-cr-2303-BEN
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?