SHELTON v. USA

Filing 8

ENTRY Dismissing Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence and Denying a Certificate of Appealability - The Court now dismisses this action pursuant to Rule 4 because the holding in Beckles forecloses the petitioner's challenge to th e 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. 2:10-cr-00007-JMS-CMM-5. The Court therefore denies a certificate of appealability (SEE ENTRY). Copy sent to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/26/2017.(DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BRADLEY S. SHELTON,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:16-cv-259-JMS-DKL

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.” Section 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.”

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), the Seventh Circuit authorized this Court to consider
the petitioner’s claim that his sentence is unconstitutional under Johnson which held that the
residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) is unconstitutionally vague. The
petitioner was sentenced as a career offender under United States Sentencing Guideline
§ 4B1.2(a)(2) 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, 137 S. Ct. 886 (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, who had appointed counsel who has since withdrawn, was notified of
this conclusion in the Entry of April 12, 2017, and directed to show cause why this action
should not be dismissed as lacking merit under Beckles. The petitioner 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. 2:10-cr-00007-JMS-CMM-5.
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: 5/26/2017

Distribution:
BRADLEY S. SHELTON
09489-028
BEAUMONT - USP
BEAUMONT U.S. PENITENTIARY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P. O. BOX 26030
BEAUMONT, TX 77720
James Robert Wood
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
[e-mail]