CATES v. USA

Filing 20

Entry Dismissing Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence and Denying a Certificate of Appealability - The petitioner filed a motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 arguing that, under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2 015), his sentence was unconstitutionally enhanced and he must be resentenced. The motion for relief is denied and this action is dismissed, pursuant to Rule 4 because the holding in Beckles forecloses the petitioner's challenge to the enhanc ement of his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue and a copy of this Entry shall be docketed in No. 2:13-cr-5-WTL-CMM-1. The Court therefore denies a certificate of appealability. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/16/2017.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

SCOTT A. CATES,
Petitioner,
vs.
USA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:15-cv-00259-WTL-DML

Entry Dismissing Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence
and Denying a Certificate of Appealability

The petitioner filed a motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 arguing that, under
Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), his sentence was unconstitutionally enhanced
and he must be resentenced. For the reasons stated below, the motion for relief is denied and this
action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the
United States District Courts.
Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge, “[i]f it
plainly appears from the motion, and any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings
that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct the
clerk to notify the moving party.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 permits a federal court to grant relief “if it
finds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not
authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or
infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to
collateral attack.”

The petitioner was sentenced as a career offender under United States Sentencing
Guideline § 4B1.1 and argues that because the residual clause of the ACCA is unconstitutionally
vague, it follows that the identical residual clause in the career offender provision of the
Sentencing Guidelines is also unconstitutionally vague. The United States Supreme Court,
however, held otherwise in Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, __ U.S. __, 2017 WL 855781
(U.S. March 6, 2017), concluding that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness
challenges under the Due Process Clause. In other words, the holding of Johnson does not apply
to cases, like the petitioner’s, challenging guideline calculations. The petitioner was notified of
this conclusion in the Entry of March 22, 2017, and was directed to show cause why this action
should not be dismissed as lacking merit under Beckles. He has failed to respond and the Court
now dismisses this action pursuant to Rule 4 because the holding in Beckles forecloses the
petitioner’s challenge to the enhancement of his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue and a copy of this Entry shall be
docketed in No. 2:13-cr-5-WTL-CMM-1.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules
Governing § 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court finds that the petitioner has
failed to show that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The
Court therefore denies a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 5/16/17
Distribution:

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

SCOTT A. CATES
07243-028
TERRE HAUTE - FCI
TERRE HAUTE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. BOX 33
TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808
James Robert Wood
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
[e-mail]