Miranda-Baldovinos v. USA
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER dismissing 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255). Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 11/3/16 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
MANUEL MIRANDA-BALDOVINOS,
Petitioner,
§ 2255 ORDER
AND
MEMORANDUM DECISION
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Case No. 1:16-CV-90-TC
Criminal Case No. 1:07-CR-5-TC
Respondent.
Mr. Manuel Miranda-Baldovinos has filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 claiming that his sentence should be reduced as a result of the United
States Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551
(2015). Because, as explained below, Johnson does not affect Mr. MirandaBaldovinos’s sentence, his motion is DENIED.
Johnson v. United States
The Court in Johnson held that the residual clause defining “violent felony”
in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) was unconstitutionally vague. 135 S.
Ct. at 2563. The decision retroactively applies to a person who was convicted of
having violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (felon in possession of a firearm) and who had
three or more previous convictions for a “violent felony” as defined by 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e)(1). See Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1268 (2016) (holding
that Johnson has retroactive effect in cases on collateral review (i.e., 2255
petitions)).
Mr. Miranda-Baldovinos’s Conviction and Sentence
A grand jury charged Mr. Miranda-Baldovinos with having committed four
crimes: possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession of a firearm by a restricted person in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k); and illegal re-entry by a deported alien in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He pled guilty to all four crimes.
The writer of the presentence report (PSR) enhanced Mr. MirandaBaldovinos’s offense level because Mr. Miranda-Baldovinos was a “career
offender” as defined in United States Sentencing Guideline §§ 4B1.1 and
4B1.2(a)(2). (PSR ¶ 35.) Mr. Miranda-Baldovinos qualified as a career offender
because his instant conviction was for possession of methamphetamine with intent
to distribute a controlled substance offense (Count 1) and he had two prior felony
convictions for controlled substance offenses. (Id.)
He had a total offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of VI,
which produced a guideline range of 262 to 327 months. (Id. ¶ 62.) There were
no “crime of violence” (i.e., “violent felony”) enhancements in the Guideline
calculations. The court sentenced Mr. Miranda-Baldovinos to 151 months in
custody followed by 5 years of supervised release.
Applicability of Johnson to Mr. Miranda-Baldovinos’s Sentence
Because Mr. Miranda-Baldovinos was not charged with a violation of the
ACCA, Johnson does not apply to his conviction.
Mr. Miranda-Baldovinos’s career offender status under Guideline § 4B1.1
could potentially qualify him for a sentence reduction. But only if his status as a
career offender was based on former convictions for “crimes of violence.” See
United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir. 2015) (extending the
decision in Johnson to the sentencing guidelines). In Madrid, the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals found that the residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2), which was
worded exactly the same as the unconstitutional residual clause in the ACCA and
which defined the term “crime of violence” used in § 4B1.1 of the Guidelines, was
unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 1210. But Mr. Miranda-Baldovinos’s sentence
was not enhanced for a crime of violence under § 4B1.1 and § 4B1.2(a)(2). He
received the § 4B1.1 enhancement because of his prior drug convictions.
Accordingly, Johnson does not extend to his sentence either.
ORDER
Because nothing in the Johnson holding has any bearing on Mr. MirandaBaldovinos’s conviction or sentence, his petition is DISMISSED.
DATED: November 3, 2016.
___________________________________
TENA CAMPBELL
United States District Court 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?