Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02903/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02903-0/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 

 14CR1660-JLS 

 16CV2903-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. 

JOSE ANSELMO MORALESGABRIEL, 

Defendant.

 Case Nos.: 14CR1660-JLS 

 16CV2903-JLS 

 

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR 

CORRECT SENTENCE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 

2255 and DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 

Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 25). The Court has considered Defendant’s 

motion together with the record in this case and, for the reasons set forth below, will 

dismiss Defendant’s motion as time barred. 

Background

 Defendant Morales-Gabriel pled guilty to the offense of attempted reentry of 

removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. ECF No. 14. On November 21, 2014, 

Defendant was sentenced to a term of 32 months’ imprisonment. ECF No. 24. 

Defendant’s advisory sentencing guideline range calculation included a 16-level 

enhancement pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline Section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) 

Case 3:16-cv-02903-JLS Document 2 Filed 09/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

 14CR1660-JLS 

 16CV2903-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

for a previous removal following a conviction for a “crime of violence.” 1

 ECF No. 18 at 

5. Defendant filed the instant motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on June 27, 2016. 

Analysis 

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

final2

 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 his motion. 

 Defendant contends that his motion is timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3)3

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. However, the Supreme Court has subsequently held that the 

Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a void for vagueness challenge under the Due 

Process Clause and that Johnson is not applicable to the advisory Guidelines. Beckles v. 

United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017). 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). 

Conclusion 

The Court finds Defendant’s motion to be time barred under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f). 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 is 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (providing that a certificate shall issue 

                                               

1

 This enhancement was based on a 2009 conviction for burglary in the first degree in violation of 

Oregon Revised Statutes Section 164.225. Presentence Report, ECF No. 18 at 7. 

2

 Defendant was sentenced on November 21, 2014 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). 

3

 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 3:16-cv-02903-JLS Document 2 Filed 09/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

 14CR1660-JLS 

 16CV2903-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

“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional 

right”). The Clerk’s Office shall enter judgment accordingly. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 26, 2018 

Case 3:16-cv-02903-JLS Document 2 Filed 09/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3