Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01394/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01394-0/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 

 15CR2912-JLS 

 16CV1394-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. 

RAYMUNDO GARCIA-QUIROZ, 

Defendant.

 Case Nos.: 15CR2912-JLS 

 16CV1394-JLS 

 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO 

VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT 

SENTENCE and DENYING CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY

 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to 

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (ECF 26). The 

Court has considered Defendant’s motion and the record in this case and, for the reasons 

set forth below, will deny Defendant’s motion. 

Background

 Defendant Garcia-Quiroz pled guilty to the offense of attempted reentry of a 

removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and, on February 19, 2016, was sentenced 

to a term of 41 months’ imprisonment. ECF 24. Defendant’s advisory sentencing 

guideline range calculation included a 12-level enhancement pursuant to United States 

Case 3:16-cv-01394-JLS Document 2 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

 15CR2912-JLS 

 16CV1394-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

Sentencing Guideline Section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for a previous removal following a 

conviction for a “crime of violence.” 1

 ECF 19 at 5. 

Analysis

 In the instant motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Defendant contends that the 

Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement was improper in light of the U.S. Supreme 

Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). 

Defendant’s claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Beckles 

v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017). In Beckles, the court held that the Sentencing 

Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause and that 

Johnson is not applicable to the advisory Guidelines. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody is DENIED. 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”). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 22, 2018 

                                               

1

 This enhancement was based on a 1984 conviction for robbery under Section 211 of the California 

Penal Code. Presentence Report, ECF 19. 

Case 3:16-cv-01394-JLS Document 2 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2