Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01658/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01658-0/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 

 10CR0161-JLS 

 16CV1658-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. 

ROBERT ARTHUR GOMEZ (3), 

Defendant.

 Case Nos.: 10CR0161-JLS 

 16CV1658-JLS 

 

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s request for relief pursuant to Johnson v. 

United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). (ECF 104). The Court has considered Defendant’s 

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

construe Defendant’s request as motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismiss Defendant’s 

motion as time-barred. 

Background

 Defendant Gomez pled guilty to the offense of conspiracy to distribute 

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. As part of his plea 

agreement, Defendant admitted being a “Career Offender” under U.S. Sentencing 

Guideline Section 4B1.1. (ECF 53:7). At a sentencing hearing held on December 3, 

2010, the Court followed the terms of the plea agreement and imposed a sentence of 151 

Case 3:16-cv-01658-JLS Document 2 Filed 08/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

 10CR0161-JLS 

 16CV1658-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

months’ imprisonment. Defendant filed the instant motion on June 24, 2016. Although 

his motion does not specifically refer to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the Court construes his 

submission as a motion under § 2255 as that is the only plausible means of correcting an 

allegedly illegal sentence in this circumstance. See e.g., Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 

F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Generally, motions to contest the legality of a sentence 

must be filed under § 2255 in the sentencing court...”).1

 

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 this motion. 

 Defendant suggests that his motion, filed on June 24, 2016, 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. In this case, Defendant contends 

this Court impermissibly increased his sentence in reliance on the residual clause of the 

Career Offender provision of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. This argument, however, 

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

(2017). In Beckles, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause in the Sentencing 

                                               

1

 Because the motion was filed well outside the 1-year 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1) limitations period, 

the Court is not persuaded that such a construction operates to Defendant’s disadvantage. See e.g., 

United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 943 (9th Cir. 1993) (Court’s characterization of letter as motion 

pursuant to Section 2255 is meant to benefit the pro se prisoner and should not be invoked to the 

prisoner=s disadvantage). 

2

 Defendant was sentenced on December 3, 2010 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) provides for 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-01658-JLS Document 2 Filed 08/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

 10CR0161-JLS 

 16CV1658-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

Guidelines, which is textually identical to the residual clause in the ACCA, “[is] not 

subject to a challenge under the void-for-vagueness doctrine.” 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). 

Defendant also suggests that the Supreme Court’s decision in Descamps v. United 

States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) may afford him relief. However, Defendant’s motion was 

filed more than one year after Descamps was decided on June 20, 2013. Moreover, 

Descamps did not recognize a new rule of law, but merely clarified existing precedent. 

Mays v. United States, 817 F.3d 728, 734 (11th Cir. 2016) (“As the Supreme Court and 

other circuits have recognized, Descamps did not announce a new rule—its holding 

merely clarified existing precedent.”) Thus, Descamps cannot serve to extend the 

limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). 

Conclusion

 The Court construes Defendant’s motion and request for relief as a motion to 

vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and finds Defendant’s 

motion to be time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f). Accordingly, Defendant’s motion 

and request for relief (ECF No. 104) is 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(providing that a certificate shall issue “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: August 24, 2018 

Case 3:16-cv-01658-JLS Document 2 Filed 08/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3