Huynh v. USA

Filing 2

ORDER Denying Defendant's Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as to Hung Van Huynh. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 4/17/2017.(ag)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 09cr1442-MMA-1
Related Case No.: 16cv1769-MMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

HUNG VAN HUYNH (1),

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO VACATE UNDER 28
U.S.C. § 2255
Defendant.

15
16

[Doc. No. 82]

17
18

On December 1, 2011, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Defendant Hung Van

19

Hyunh pleaded guilty to count four of a Superseding Indictment for distributing 220.8

20

grams of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United

21

States Code, section 841(a)(1), and Title 18, section 2. See Doc. No. 53. The Court

22

sentenced Defendant on June 4, 2012 to a term of 180 months imprisonment. See Doc.

23

No. 64. Defendant filed a successive motion1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging

24

his classification as a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines in

25
26

27
1

28

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Defendant’s application for
authorization to file a successive 2255 motion. See Doc. No. 86-1.
1
09cr1442-MMA-1

1

light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ---, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). See Doc. No. 82.

2

The government filed a response in opposition to Defendant’s motion. See Doc. No. 87.

3

In Johnson, the Supreme Court held the residual clause in the definition of a

4

“violent felony” in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)

5

(“ACCA”), to be unconstitutionally vague and a violation of the Due Process Clause.

6

135 S. Ct. at 2557. Defendant was not sentenced under the ACCA’s residual clause; he

7

was sentenced based on the career offender enhancement provision of the Sentencing

8

Guidelines. Nonetheless, Defendant argues that Johnson’s holding is applicable, because

9

the ACCA’s residual clause is identical in language to Section 4B1.2’s residual clause.

10

However, on March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that Johnson’s holding does not

11

extend to the Sentencing Guidelines, in so far as “the advisory Guidelines are not subject

12

to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.”2 Beckles v. United States, 137 S.

13

Ct. 886, 197 L. Ed. 2d 145 (2017). Under Beckles, “it plainly appears from the face of

14

the motion” that Defendant “is not entitled to relief.” See Rule 4(b) of the Rules

15

Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. As such,

16

Defendant’s 2255 motion must be denied.

17

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

18

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States

19

District Courts provides that “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of

20

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A defendant must

21

obtain a certificate of appealability before pursuing any appeal from a final order in a

22

Section 2255 proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). When the denial of a Section

23

2255 motion is based on the merits of the claims in the motion, a district court should

24

issue a certificate of appealability only when the appeal presents a “substantial showing

25

26
2

27
28

Subsequent to the issuance of Beckles, Defendant requested thirty (30) days in which to review the
Supreme Court’s decision and submit a reply brief. See Doc. No. 88. Defendant also asked the Court to
defer ruling on his 2255 motion in the interim. Id. More than thirty days has passed, and to date,
Defendant has not filed any additional briefing.
2
09cr1442-MMA-1

1

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The defendant must

2

show that reasonable jurists could debate whether the issues should have been resolved

3

differently or are “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.

4

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000), quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4

5

(1983), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Mendez v.

6

Knowles, 556 F.3d 757, 771 (9th Cir. 2009). Because Defendant has not made a

7

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and because the Court finds

8

that reasonable jurists would not debate the denial of Defendant’s motion, the Court

9

declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

10
11

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s 2255 motion. The Court

12

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court is instructed to

13

enter judgment in accordance herewith and close the related civil case.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 17, 2017

_______________________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
09cr1442-MMA-1