Anaya v. USA
OPINION AND ORDER denying Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255). The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk is ORDERED to DISMISS this civil action WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is FURTHER ORDERED to distribute a copy of this order to Petitioner as outlined in order. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 8/4/17. (Copy mailed as directed in Order). (nal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Correct
Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed by Martin Anaya (“Anaya”) on
June 27, 2016 (DE #1307).
For the reasons set forth below, the
motion is DENIED.
A jury found Anaya guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 2). This court determined that
Guideline section 4B1.1.
He was sentenced to 240 months of
incarceration on Count One and 360 months of incarceration on Count
Two, to be served concurrently.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court of the United States analyzed
whether the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act
(“ACCA”) is void for vagueness.
Ct. 2551 (2015).
Johnson v. United States, 135 S.
As Justice Scalia noted:
Under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, a
defendant convicted of being a felon in
possession of a firearm faces more severe
punishment if he has three or more previous
convictions for a “violent felony,” a term
defined to include any felony that “involves
conduct that presents a serious potential risk
of physical injury to another.”
We must decide whether this
part of the definition of a violent felony
survives the Constitution’s prohibition of
vague criminal laws.
Id. at 2555.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that “imposing an
increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career
Criminal Act violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process.”
Id. at 2563. It therefore overruled its prior decision in Sykes v.
United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (2011), and held that the residual
Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2563.
Price v. United States, 795 F.3d 731, 732 (7th
Although this Court found Anaya was a career offender under
Guideline section 4B1.1, Anaya was not sentenced as an armed career
criminal under the ACCA. Accordingly, Anaya’s Johnson argument can
only prevail if the decision in Johnson is applicable to the
similar language of the Guidelines under which Anaya was sentenced.
On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Beckles v. United
States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017). The Court in Beckles determined that
the holding in Johnson did not extent to the Guideline provision
under which Anaya was found to be a career offender.
As the Court
Unlike the ACCA, however, the advisory
Guidelines do not fix the permissible range of
sentences. To the contrary, they merely guide
the exercise of a court’s discretion in
choosing an appropriate sentence within the
statutory range. Accordingly, the Guidelines
are not subject to a vagueness challenge under
the Due Process Clause. The residual clause
in 4B1.2(a)(2) therefore is not void for
Id. at 892.
In light of Beckles, the Court’s ruling in Johnson is
inapplicable to Anaya, and his Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (DE #1307) is DENIED.
Even if Johnson had been extended to Guideline section 4B1.1,
Anaya’s motion would still fail. Under the particular facts of his
case, despite the finding that he was a career offender, the
designation did not alter his Guideline calculation.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255
Proceedings, a district court must “issue or deny a certificate of
A certificate of appealability may issue only if the
applicant “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
To make such a
showing, a defendant must show that “reasonable jurists could
debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the motion should
have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 475 (U.S. 2000)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
stated any grounds for relief under section 2255.
Anaya has not
The Court finds
no basis for a determination that reasonable jurists would find
this decision debatable or incorrect or that the issues deserve
encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the Court DECLINES to
issue a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk is ORDERED to DISMISS this civil action WITH
The Clerk is FURTHER ORDERED to distribute a copy of
this order to Petitioner (Inmate Reg. No. 11317-027), Pekin FCI,
Federal Correctional Institution, Inmate Mail/Parcels, P.C. Box
5000, Pekin, IL 61555, or to such other more current address that
may be on file for the Anaya.
DATED: August 4, 2017
/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
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?