Munoz v. United States of America

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Robert C. Brack DISMISSING 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255 under Johnson v. USA). CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS DENIED (yc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Respondent,
vs.

No. CV 16-00736 RB/SMV
No. CR 09-02968 RB

DANIEL RAMON MUÑOZ,
Defendant/Movant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 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, Daniel Ramon Muñoz. (CV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 531). In his § 2255 Motion,
Movant 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. 135). He contends that his prior conviction for
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is no longer a “crime of violence” as defined in §
4B1.2.
In United States v. Maldonado-Palma, 839 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2016), the Tenth Circuit
held that aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is a “crime of violence” without resort to the
residual clause language of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. On January 19, 2017, the Court issued an Order to
Show Cause, directing Movant Muñoz to show cause why his § 2255 Motion should not be
1 

dismissed in light of the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in Maldonado-Palma. (CV Doc. 7; CR Doc.
574). Movant responded to the Order to Show Cause on February 21, 2017, conceding that
Maldonado-Palma would be dispositive of the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon issue,
but arguing that the case should not be dismissed because a petition for writ of certiorari was
pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in Maldonado-Palma. Movant also noted that Beckles v.
United States was pending in the Supreme Court and could impact the issues raised in this case.
(CV Doc. 8; CR Doc. 578).
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. The Court then ordered the parties
to file a joint statement addressing whether the ruling in Beckles is dispositive of all remaining
issues raised in Movant’s § 2255 Motion. (CV Doc. 9; CR Doc. 582). On March 28, 2017, the
United States filed a Notice in response to the Court’s Order. (CV Doc. 10; CR Doc. 584). The
Notice indicates that the United States submitted a draft joint statement to Movant’s counsel on
March 14, 2017, but has been unable to obtain counsel’s position. The Notice also establishes
that certiorari has been denied by the Supreme Court in Maldonado-Palma. (CV Doc. 10,
Exhibit 1; CR Doc. 584, Exhibit 1). The United States requests dismissal of Movant’s § 2255
Motion on the grounds that Beckles is dispositive of all remaining issues in the case. (CV Doc.
10; CR Doc. 584).
Based on the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in Maldonado-Palma, 839 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2016)
and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Beckles, 580 U.S. ___, No. 15-8544, slip op (March 6, 2017),
Movant Muñoz is clearly not entitled to relief on his § 2255 Motion. The Motion will be
dismissed with prejudice under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. The

2 

Court further determines, sua sponte under rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255
Cases, that Muñoz has failed to make a substantial showing that he has been denied a
constitutional right and the Court will deny a certificate of appealability.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by
Defendant/Movant, Daniel Ramon Muñoz (CV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 531) is DISMISSED with
prejudice under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings and a certificate of
appealability is DENIED.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3