Aramburo v. USA
Filing
1
OPINION AND ORDER: The court DENIES the Defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/6/2016. (lhc)(cc: Aramburo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JONATHAN ARAMBURO
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 1:11-CR-19-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
The Defendant, Jonathan Aramburo, pled guilty to conspiring to distribute marijuana, a
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and to carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking
crime, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s
Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal
Custody [ECF No. 384], filed on June 24, 2016. The sole ground cited for relief is that his prison
sentence was “enhanced for prior criminal conduct that has now been ruled as unconstitutional
pursuant to [Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)].” (Mot. 4.)
The holding of Johnson is that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act
(ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is invalid. See Stanley v. United States, 827 F.3d 562, 564
(7th Cir. 2016) (emphasizing the limited impact of Johnson). The decision did not otherwise
affect the operation of the remainder of the ACCA, including the definition of serious drug
offense. Id.; Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2563. The Defendant was not sentenced under the ACCA.
Nor was his sentence otherwise enhanced based on the classification of prior convictions as
violent felonies. The Defendant was actually sentenced based on a binding term set forth in his
Plea Agreement. (Plea Agreement ¶ 8.c, ECF No. 277; Judgment 2, ECF No. 319.)
Even without the binding term, there is no avenue of relief based on recent case law.
Under § 924(c), an individual convicted of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to
any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, or possessing a firearm in furtherance of such a
crime, receives a five-year mandatory minimum sentence in addition to the punishment for the
underlying crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). The Defendant was convicted of conspiring to
distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and he received a
consecutive sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for carrying a firearm during and in relation to a
drug trafficking crime—not a crime of violence. The definition for “drug trafficking crime”
under § 924(c)(2) is distinct from the definition of a “crime of violence” under that same statute,
and has nothing to do with residual clauses.
Johnson has no effect on convictions for § 924(c) based on drug trafficking crimes, and
there is no basis for vacating the Defendant’s sentence.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion Under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [ECF
No. 384]. Because reasonable jurists would not debate that the Motion fails to present a valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right, or that the Motion should have been resolved in a
different manner, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).
SO ORDERED on December 6, 2016.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
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?