Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02171/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02171-0/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 

12CR4302-JLS 

 14CV2171-JLS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

FRANCISCO LUJAN-CARPIO, 

Defendant.

 Case Nos.: 12CR4302-JLS 

 14CV2171-JLS 

ORDER DISMISSING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS UNDER 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE, SET 

ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE 

and DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

On September 11, 2014, Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for Time 

Reduction by an Inmate in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 28). On 

April 25, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct Sentence by Person in Federal Custody (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff has not filed a 

response to either motion. 

Defendant’s first motion was filed more than one year after his conviction became 

final1

 and is therefore untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). Defendant has not 

alleged or demonstrated that any of the alternative limitation periods set forth in Section 

2255(f) are applicable with respect to this motion. 

                                               

1

 Defendant was sentenced on February 22, 2013 and he filed no notice of appeal. Thus, his conviction 

became final 14 days later. See United States v. Schwartz, 274 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(recognizing that statute of limitations for § 2255 motion began to run upon the expiration of the time 

during which the defendant could have sought review by direct appeal). 

Case 3:14-cv-02171-JLS Document 3 Filed 09/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

12CR4302-JLS 

 14CV2171-JLS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant contends that his second motion, filed on April 25, 2016, is timely 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3)2

 in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 

(2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause of the Armed 

Career Criminal Act (AACCA@) as unconstitutionally vague. 

Defendant contends that Johnson announced a new rule rendering his sentence 

enhancement for a crime of violence pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline 

Section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) void or unconstitutional. This argument, however, is 

foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 

(2017). In Beckles, the Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a 

void for vagueness challenge. 137 S.Ct. at 896. Therefore, Johnson is not applicable in 

this case and thus cannot serve to extend the limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255(f)(3). 

Accordingly, the Court finds both motions filed by Defendant to be time-barred 

under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f). Defendant’s Motion for Time Reduction by an Inmate in 

Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 28) and Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by Person in Federal Custody (ECF No. 

30) are Hereby Dismissed. Additionally, the Court Denies Defendant a certificate of 

appealability, as Defendant has not made a substantial showing that he has been denied a 

constitutional right. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 21, 2017 

                                               

2

 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) proscribes a one year period of limitation from “the date on which the right 

asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the 

Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.” 

Case 3:14-cv-02171-JLS Document 3 Filed 09/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2