Torres-Sandoval v. United States of America

Filing 6

ORDER denying 2255 motion by Judge Richard A Jones. (RS) cc petitioner

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

JONATHAN TORRES-SANDOVAL,

11

Petitioner,

12

14

ORDER

v.

13

CASE NO. C16-1000-RAJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

15
16
17

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Jonathan Torres-Sandoval’s

18 Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence by a Person
19 in Federal Custody. Dkt. # 1. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Mr.
20 Torres-Sandoval’s motion.
21

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), a federal prisoner may file a motion to vacate, set

22 aside, or correct his or her sentence “upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in
23 violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without
24 jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum
25 authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack . . . .”
26
27

ORDER- 1

1

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), there is no right to appeal from a final order in a

2 proceeding under section 2255 unless a circuit judge issues a certificate of appealability.
3 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).
4

Mr. Torres-Sandoval’s motion is based upon Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct.

5 2551 (2015); Mr. Torres-Sandoval argues that the sentence he received for a firearm
6 charge are subject to review based on Supreme Court precedent. See, generally, Dkt. # 1.
7 To qualify for a sentence reduction under Johnson, Mr. Torres-Sandoval must show that
8 he was sentenced under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
9 See Johnson, 135 S.Ct. 2551; see also Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 2017 WL
10 855781 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2017) (finding that Johnson does not extend to those sentenced
11 under a similarly worded clause in the Sentencing Guidelines).
12

According to Mr. Torres-Sandoval’s Pre-Sentence Report, he was charged under

13 the Controlled Substances Act and the ACCA. CR12-217, Dkt. # 144. However, his
14 ACCA related charge for using a firearm was based on a drug trafficking crime, not a
15 “crime of violence.” Id.; 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The residual clause is based on the latter,
16 and therefore Johnson has no application in this context.
17

For the all the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED. Dkt. # 1, 5. The Court

18 directs the Clerk to DISMISS this action. The Court finds that reasonable jurists would
19 not debate the resolution of this motion. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a
20 certificate of appealability. See Fed. R. Governing § 2255 Proceedings, Rule 11(a); Slack
21 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
22

Dated this 20th day of March, 2017.

23

A

24
25

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

26
27

ORDER- 2