McKenzie v. United States of America

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James O. Browning, the Defendant/Movant's Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. section 2255, 1 the Defendant/Movant's Supplemental Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. section 2255, 6 are dismissed with prejudice. (meq)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Respondent,
vs.

Nos. CIV 16-0740 JB/KBM
CR 08-1669 JB

RICHARD MCKENZIE,
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 Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, filed June 22, 2016 (CIV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 219)(“§ 2255 Motion”), and (ii) the
Defendant/Movant’s Supplemental Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed
August 9, 2016 (CIV Doc. 6; CR Doc. 223)(“Supplemental Motion”). In his § 2255 Motion and
Supplemental Motion, Defendant/Movant Richard McKenzie, 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 held that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a void-forvagueness challenge. See 580 U.S. ___, No. 15-8544, slip op at 5. Pursuant to the Court’s
Order, filed March 9, 2017 (CIV Doc. 14; CR Doc. 230), the parties have filed a Statement that
the ruling in Beckles vs. United States is dispositive of all issues that McKenzie’s § 2255 Motion
and Supplemental Motion raise, and that the Court should dismiss his § 2255 proceeding with

prejudice. See Proposed Joint Statement, filed March 14, 2017 (CIV Doc. 15; CR Doc. 231).
McKenzie is not entitled to relief, and the Court will dismiss, under rule 4, his § 2255 Motion
and Supplemental Motion.
IT IS ORDERED that: (i) the Defendant/Movant’s Motion to Correct Sentence Under
28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed June 22, 2016 (CIV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 219), and (ii) the
Defendant/Movant’s Supplemental Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed
August 9, 2016 (CIV Doc. 6; CR Doc. 223), are dismissed with prejudice.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Counsel:
Jason Bowles
Bowles Law Firm
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Attorney for the Defendant/Movant

Damon P. Martinez
United States Attorney
Samuel A. Hurtado
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Attorneys for the Plaintiff/Respondent

-2