Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01673/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01673-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

FILED 

APR 0 8 19 

5 UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT 

6 SOUTHERN DISTRlCT OF CALIFORNIA 

7 ALEJANDRO OROZCO-MADRlGAL, Case No.: 16-cv-1673-BEN 

8 Movant, 15-cr-215-BEN 

9 v. 

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERlCA, 

11 Respondent. 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR 

CORRECT A SENTENCE UNDER 

28 u.s.c. § 2255 

12 

13 Movant Alejandro Orozco-Madrigal filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

14 Correct a Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Respondent, the United States opposes 

15 the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion. 

16 BACKGROUND 

17 In 2015, Orozco-Madrigal was charged with the crime of illegal reentry into the 

18 United States. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced. The sentence was 51 months in 

19 prison. As part of his plea agreement and during the sentencing, Orozco-Madrigal 

20 waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence. In June 2016, he filed the 

21 instant motion for collateral relief under§ 2255. 

22 Under§ 2255, a movant is entitled to relief if the sentence: (1) was imposed in 

23 violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States; (2) was given by a court 

24 without jurisdiction to do so; (3) was in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by 

25 law; or (4) is otherwise subject to collateral attack. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

26 DISCUSSION 

27 The motion fails on two grounds. First, Movant validly waived his right to 

28 collaterally attack his sentence. The record discloses no issues as to the voluntariness of 

l 6-cv-1673-BEN 

15-cr-215-BEN 

Case 3:16-cv-01673-BEN Document 2 Filed 04/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1 the plea and waiver. Second, contrary to his contentions, Movant's sentence was not 

2 unconstitutionally enhanced under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). In 

3 Johnson, the Supreme Court considered language in the Armed Career Criminal Act 

4 ("ACCA"). The Supreme Court examined the definition of "violent felony" and held that 

5 a portion of that definition known as the "residual clause" is void for vagueness. 

6 However, Movant was not sentenced under the residual clause of the violent felony 

7 definition of the ACCA. Rather, he was sentenced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553 as 

8 guided by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2Ll .2. Reading the motion liberally, when it 

9 was still an open question, Movant challenged the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as 

10 unconstitutionally vague based on the same reasoning as Johnson. However, since the 

11 motion was filed, the Supreme Court has rejected the argument in Beckles v. United 

12 States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), holding that the federal Sentencing Guidelines are not 

13 subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause. 

14 Therefore, the motion is denied because: (1) Movant validly waived his right to 

15 collateral attack; and (2) the motion is without merit. 

16 CONCLUSION 

17 The Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence is DENIED. 

18 A court may issue a certificate of appealability where the movant has made a 

19 "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," and reasonable jurists could 

20 debate whether the motion should have been resolved differently, or that the issues 

21 presented deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

22 322, 335 (2003). This Court finds that Movant has not made the necessary showing. A 

23 certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 

24 

25 

26 Dated: 

27 

28 

2 

TEZ 

16-cv-1673-BEN 

l 5-cr-215-BEN 

Case 3:16-cv-01673-BEN Document 2 Filed 04/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2