Case ID: f-appx_703/html/0451-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jeremy M. DEPERALTA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-2187
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 20, 2017
    Filed: November 30, 2017
    Jeremy M. Deperalta, Pro Se
    Bruce E. Clark, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jeremy Deperalta appeals following the district court’s- order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Deperalta claimed that his 63-month prison term, which was ' imposed pursuant to the advisory Sentencing Guidelines after he pleaded'guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, was unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2557-58, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), invalidat.ing as unconstitutionally vague a provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act known as the “residual clause.” After the district court denied Deperalta’s motion, the Supreme Court issued Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 890, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), holding that advisory Guidelines are not subject to constitutional vagueness challenges under Due Process Clause. The judgment of the district court is thus affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 
      
      . The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri,