Wyatt v. USA

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the Court GRANTS Assistant Federal Defender Judith A. Kuenneke's Motion (Doc. 10 ) to Withdraw and DENIES Petitioners Motion (Doc. 1) § 2255 Motion. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in this matter. Finally, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 5/17/2017. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
AARON WYATT,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No. 15-cv-00795-JPG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Aaron Wyatt’s Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). Also before the Court is
Assistant Federal Defender Judith A. Kuenneke’s Motion (Doc. 10) to Withdraw as Attorney for
Aaron Wyatt.

The petitioner and the government were provided 30 days to respond to the

motion to withdraw and neither party has filed as response.
1. Background.
On September 18, 1998, Mr. Wyatt pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
distribute “crack cocaine” and two counts of distribution of “crack cocaine.” See United States
v. Wyatt, Case No. 98-cr-40002 (Doc. 79). He was sentenced on December 21, 1998 to 264
months imprisonment, five years supervised release, a $300 special assessment, and a $1,500.00
fine. (Doc. 133, 98-cr-40002).
Petitioner’s counsel has filed an Anders 1brief and requested to withdrawn. Mr. Wyatt’s
§ 2255 motion was based on the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct.
2551 (2015) and his counsel now states that the Supreme Court’s holding in Beckles v United
States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017) renders Petitioner’s motion meritless.
1

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel could put forth no non-frivolous arguments.

2. Standard.
The Court must grant a § 2255 motion when a defendant’s “sentence was imposed in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

However,

“[h]abeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for extraordinary situations.” Prewitt
v. United States, 83 F.3d 812, 816 (7th Cir. 1996). “Relief under § 2255 is available only for
errors of constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude, or where the error represents a fundamental
defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Kelly v. United States, 29
F.3d 1107, 1112 (7th Cir. 1994) (quotations omitted). It is proper to deny a § 2255 motion
without an evidentiary hearing if, “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively
demonstrate that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); see Sandoval v.
3. Analysis.
The petitioner’s argument relies on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which
held that the use of the identical residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e), to increase the statutory sentencing range is unconstitutional. Id. at 2563. This is
because the vagueness of the clause denies fair notice to a defendant of his potential punishment
and invites arbitrary enforcement by judges. Id. at 2557. In United States v. Hurlburt, 835 F.3d
715 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals applied the same rationale to
hold that use of the career offender (“CO”) residual clause to support CO status, thereby
increasing the guideline sentencing range, was also unconstitutional. Id. at 725.
Hurlburt, however, was abrogated by Beckles, which held that sentencing guidelines are not
amendable to vagueness challenges. Beckles, 2017 WL 855781, at *6. This is because, unlike
the statute at issue in Johnson, advisory guidelines “do not fix the permissible range of
sentences” but “merely guide the exercise of a court’s discretion in choosing an appropriate

2

sentence within the statutory range.” Id. Beckles forecloses the petitioner’s argument that he is
entitled to § 2255 relief.
4. Certificate of Appealability.
Having denied petitioner’s motion, the Court must grant or deny a certificate of
appealability. See Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United
States District Courts; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Section 2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate of
appealability may issue only if a petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. Mr. Wyatt has made no such showing. Therefore, the Court denies a
certificate of appealability. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), Mr. Wyatt may not appeal the denial of a
certificate of appealability, but he may seek a certificate from the Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.
5. Conclusion.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Assistant Federal Defender Judith A. Kuenneke’s
Motion (Doc. 10) to Withdraw and DENIES Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 1) § 2255 Motion. This
matter is DISMISSED with prejudice and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment
in this matter. Finally, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 5/17/2017
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3