Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04530/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04530-0/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

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arturo Rodriguez-Rios,

Movant/Defendant,

v. 

United States of America,

Respondent/Plaintiff.

No. CV-16-04530-PHX-SRB (MHB)

 CR-08-01442-004-SRB (MHB)

REPORTAND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On February 4, 2017, Movant Arturo Rodriguez-Rios, who is confined in the 

Federal Correctional Institution in Coleman, Florida, filed through counsel an Amended 

Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“2255 

motion”). (Doc. 13.) In his 2255 motion, Movant challenged his conviction for 

possession or use of a firearm during a crime of violence (hostage taking), in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 924(c), based upon the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. 

United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). (Id.) 

On March 7, 2017, this Court stayed the case “pending decisions by the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Begay, No. 14-10080 and the United States 

Supreme Court in Lynch v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498.” (Doc. 17.) On November 20, 2018,

this Court again stayed the case “pending the Ninth Circuit’s forthcoming decision in 

United States v. Begay, No. 14-10080.” (Doc. 38.) On June 24, 2019, the Supreme 

Court issued its decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (June 24, 2019), 

Case 2:16-cv-04530-SRB Document 56 Filed 10/21/19 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

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

holding that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. On August 19, 2019, 

the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Begay, reiterating the holding in Davis. United 

States v. Begay, 934 F. 3d 1033 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2019). 

On September 11, 2019, the United States filed its Response to Movant’s 2255 

motion. (Doc. 50.) In its motion, the United States asserts that this Court should grant 

Movant’s request to vacate his § 924 (c) conviction and sentence, and resentence Movant 

on the remaining counts of conviction, following an amended guidelines calculation. 

(Id.) 

Movant was originally convicted after a trial of four felony counts: Count One, 

Conspiracy to Commit Hostage Taking; Count Two, Hostage Taking; Count Three 

Possession, Using and Brandishing a Firearm during and in Relation to a Crime of 

Violence; and Count Four, Harboring Illegal Aliens for Financial Gain. (CRDoc1. 157.) 

Movant was subsequently sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment on Counts One and 

Two; 120 months on Count Four, and 84 months on Count Three. (CRDoc. 191.) 

Counts One, Two and Four were ordered to run concurrently, and Count Three was 

ordered to run consecutive to the other counts. (Id.)

The United States asserts that the crime of hostage taking, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

1203, is no longer a crime of violence, in that the elements of the crime do not satisfy the 

elements clause of § 924(c)(3)(A), because a “’threat[] . . . to continue to detain’ can be 

accomplished without the use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent physical force.” 

(Doc. 50 at 4.) And, since the residual clause, § 924(c)(3)(B), has been determined by 

the Supreme Court to be unconstitutionally vague, Movant’s judgment and sentence 

under Count Three must be vacated. This Court agrees, and will recommend that 

Movant’s 2255 motion be granted, and that his conviction on Count Three be vacated, 

and the charge be dismissed with prejudice.

The United States further requests that the remaining counts of conviction be 

remanded for a resentencing, because Movant’s sentence is now unbundled by virtue of 

 

1

“CRDoc” refers to docket entries from Movant’s criminal case, CR-08-01442-004-SRB.

Case 2:16-cv-04530-SRB Document 56 Filed 10/21/19 Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

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

the vacatur of one of the counts of conviction, citing United States v. Ruiz-Alvarez, 211 

F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2000) (“When a defendant is sentenced on multiple counts and 

one of them is later vacated on appeal, the sentencing package comes ‘unbundled,’” and 

the court may re-sentence on the remaining counts). See, also United States v. McClain, 

133 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 1998) (when defendant’s § 924(c) conviction was reversed, court 

could re-sentence and apply 2-level guideline enhancement for possession of a weapon).

Subsequent to the filing of the United States’ Response, Movant filed a Motion for 

Extension of Time to File a Reply, and a Motion to Withdraw from Representation. 

(Docs. 51, 52.) In support of her motions, Movant’s counsel indicated that she had 

various scheduling conflicts, and was in the process of wrapping up her practice in 

anticipation of retirement. This Court scheduled a Status Hearing in the case on October 

7, 2019, to discuss with Movant’s counsel the necessity of filing a Reply in lieu of the 

United States’ non-opposition to Movant’s 2255 motion. At the hearing, this Court 

indicated that it was inclined to recommend the granting of Movant’s 2255 motion, and

further recommend remanding the remaining counts of conviction for re-sentencing. This 

Court also indicated it would recommend to the District Court that the only fact that 

should be considered on resentencing was Movant’s possession of a firearm during the 

commission of the underlying offense(es). The Court gave Movant until October 9, 

2019, to file a Reply.

In his Reply, Movant states that “[h]aving considered the Government’s response 

to the merits of Movant’s amended § 2255 motion [] and the Court’s proposed 

recommendation as discussed at the October 7, 2019 status hearing [] Movant replies that 

the Court should grant Movant’s amended motion, vacate his § 924 conviction, and set 

this matter for resentencing.” (Doc. 55.)

For all of the above reasons, this Court will recommend that Movant’s amended § 

2255 motion be granted, that Movant’s conviction on Count Three - Possessing, Using 

and Carrying a Firearm during and in Relation to a Crime of Violence - be vacated, that 

the remaining three counts of conviction be remanded for re-sentencing, and that the 

Case 2:16-cv-04530-SRB Document 56 Filed 10/21/19 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

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

Court only consider the fact of Movant’s possession of a firearm in re-calculating 

Movant’s applicable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and sentence. This Court will grant 

Movant’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (Doc. 51) and order that new counsel be 

appointed to represent Movant.

IT IS ORDERED granting Movant’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (Doc. 51), 

and appointing Atmore Baggott, CJA counsel, 1615 N. Delaware Dr., Spc. 144, Apache 

Junction, AZ 85120, at (480) 983-9394, to represent Movant.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Movant’s amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 13) 

be GRANTED, and that the Court vacate Movant’s conviction and sentence on Count 

Three, Possession, Using and Carrying a Firearm during and in Relation to a Crime of 

Violence;

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the remaining counts of conviction be 

remanded for re-sentencing, and that the court only consider the fact of Movant’s 

possession of a firearm in recalculating Movant’s U.S.S.G. sentencing guideline range.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The 

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the 

parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to 

Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the 

District of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed 

seventeen (17) pages in length. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any 

Case 2:16-cv-04530-SRB Document 56 Filed 10/21/19 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s 

right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant 

to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

Dated this 18th day of October, 2019.

Case 2:16-cv-04530-SRB Document 56 Filed 10/21/19 Page 5 of 5