Martinez v. United States of America

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James O. Browning, the Defendant/Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, 5 the Defendant/Movant's Motion to Vacate and Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, (CR Doc. 58); and the Defendant/Movant's Supplemental Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, 12 are dismissed with prejudice (meq).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Respondent,
vs.

Nos. CIV 16-0388 JB/SMV
CR 09-2619 JB

ERNIE MARTINEZ,
Defendant/Movant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF MOTION TO
CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255
THIS MATTER comes before the Court, under rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2255 Proceedings, on (i) the Defendant/Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct
Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed June 22, 2016 (CIV Doc. 5)(“§ 2255 Motion”); (ii) the
Defendant/Movant’s Motion to Vacate and Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed May
5, 2016 (CR Doc. 58)(“Amended Motion”); and (iii) the Defendant/Movant’s Supplemental
Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed July 29, 2016 (CIV
Doc. 12)(“Suppl. Motion”). In his § 2255 Motion, Defendant/Movant Ernie Martinez alleges
that he improperly received an enhanced sentence as a career offender under the United States
Sentencing Guidelines, because U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague
under the reasoning in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). In
Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. ___, No. 15-8544, slip op (March 6, 2017), the Supreme
Court of the United States of America held that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are not
subject to a void-for-vagueness challenge.

See 580 U.S. ___, No. 15-8544, slip op at 5.

Pursuant to the Court’s Order, filed March 13, 2017 (CR Doc. 75), the parties have filed a

Statement that the ruling in Beckles is dispositive of all issues raised in Martinez’ § 2255
Motion, Amended Motion, and Suppl. Motion, and that the Court should dismiss his § 2255 with
prejudice. See Proposed Joint Statement, filed March 22, 2017 (CR Doc. 76). Martinez is not
entitled to relief, and the Court will dismiss his § 2255 Motion, Amended Motion, and Suppl.
Motion under rule 4.
IT IS ORDERED that: (i) the Defendant/Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed June 22, 2016 (CIV Doc. 5); (ii) the
Defendant/Movant’s Motion to Vacate and Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed May
5, 2016 (CR Doc. 58); and (iii) the Defendant/Movant’s Supplemental Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed July 29, 2016 (CIV Doc. 12), are dismissed
with prejudice under rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Counsel:
James D. Tierney
Acting United States Attorney
Jon K. Stanford
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Attorneys for the Plaintiff/Respondent
Jason Bowles
Bowles Law Firm
Albuquerque, New Mexico
-- and -Roberto Albertorio
Albuquerque, New Mexico
-2-

-- and -David A. Streubel
Cunningham, Vogel & Rost, P.C.
Saint Louis, Missouri
-- and -John Van Butcher
Office of the Federal Public Defender
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Attorneys for the Defendant/Movant

-3-