Gutierrez v. United States of America
ORDER by District Judge Robert C. Brack DISMISSING 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255 under Johnson v. USA) filed by Robert Sedillo Gutierrez (yc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. CV 16-00730 RB/KK
No. CR 05-00217 RB
ROBERT SEDILLO GUTIERREZ,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF MOTION TO CORRECT
SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255
THIS MATTER is before the Court under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255
Proceedings on the Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by
Defendant/Movant, Robert Sedillo Gutierrez. (CV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 233). In his § 2255 Motion,
Movant Gutierrez claims that he improperly received an enhanced sentence as a career offender
under the United States Sentencing Guidelines because the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 is
unconstitutionally vague under the reasoning in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135
S.Ct. 2551 (2015). (CV Doc 1; CR Doc. 233).
In Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. ___, No. 15-8544, slip op (March 6, 2017), the
Supreme Court held that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a void-forvagueness challenge. 580 U.S. ___, No. 15-8544, slip op at 5. Pursuant to the Court’s Order, the
Parties have filed a Statement that the ruling in Beckles is dispositive of all issues raised in
Gutierrez’s § 2255 Motion and Supplemental Motion and that his § 2255 proceeding should be
dismissed. (CV Doc. 9; CR Doc. 241). Gutierrez is not entitled to relief and his § 2255 Motion
and Supplemental Motion will be dismissed under Rule 4.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by
Defendant/Movant, Robert Sedillo Gutierrez (CV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 233) is DISMISSED under
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?