Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01470/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01470-0/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

3:16-cv-01470-GPC; Related Case No.: 3:15-cr-00029-GPC-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Ervin Morelli,

Petitioner,

v.

United States of America,

Respondent.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01470-GPC; 

Related Case No.: 3:15-cr-00029-GPC-2

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION TO 

VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR 

CORRECT SENTENCE

[ECF. No. 78.]

Before the Court is Petitioner Ervin Morelli’s (“Petitioner’s” or “Morelli’s”) 

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion was 

filed on June 13, 2016. (Dkt. No. 78.)

1

 Respondent United States of America 

(“Respondent” or “Government”) opposes. (Dkt. No. 84.) For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 

BACKGROUND

On or about December 9, 2014, Morelli transported, moved, or attempted to 

transport or move, aliens within the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 

 

1 All citations to the record are based upon the pagination generated by the CM/ECF system in 

3:15-cr-00029-GPC-2.

Case 3:16-cv-01470-GPC Document 2 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

3:16-cv-01470-GPC; Related Case No.: 3:15-cr-00029-GPC-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

1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II). (Dkt. No. 1.) Morelli pleaded guilty to the § 1324 offense 

on February 24, 2015. (Dkt. No. 40.) Morelli was sentenced on May 29, 2015 with a 

guidelines calculation that incorporated an adjustment under USSG § 2L1.1(b)(6).2 (Dkt. 

No. 68.) He was sentenced to a below-guidelines term of thirty months in custody and

three years of supervised release. (Id.) 

On June 13, 2016, while in custody, Morelli timely filed the instant § 2255 motion 

to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).

3

(Dkt. No. 78.) Petitioner argues that 

the Court’s imposition of an increased sentence under USSG § 2L1.1(b)(6) violated his 

due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. (Id.) Specifically, Morelli contends that

(1) USSG § 2L1.1(b)(6) “now falls under the Residual Clause” of the Armed Career 

Criminal Act (“ACCA”); (2) Petitioner’s prior state convictions do not qualify as 

predicate offenses for ACCA enhancement; (3) and Johnson retroactively applies to his 

sentence. (Id.) 

On August 3, 2016, the Court appointed the Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc.

to represent Morelli. (Dkt. No. 79.) Petitioner’s counsel subsequently notified the Court

that after thoroughly researching the case, counsel did not intend to file any supplement 

to Morelli’s § 2255 motion or present any additional argument or legal authority on 

Morelli’s behalf. (Dkt. No. 83.)

On October 7, 2016, the Government filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 84.) Morelli 

filed a reply, nunc pro tunc to October 28, 2016. (Dkt. No. 86.)

 

2 Morelli inaccurately stated that his sentence incorporated a guidelines adjustment under USSG 

§ 2K2.1(A) in his motion. (Dkt. No. 78 at 1.) His reply brief clarified that the relevant USSG section is 

USSG § 2L1.1(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 86 at 1.)

3 A petitioner can file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion if he is a “prisoner in custody under sentence of 

a court established by Act of Congress.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). A petitioner on supervised release may 

also file a § 2255 motion even though he is not in physical custody of the United States. Mujahid v. 

Daniels, 413 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[A] habeas petitioner remains in the custody of the United 

States while on supervised release.”). It is timely if it is filed under the one-year period of limitation 

from the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). 

Case 3:16-cv-01470-GPC Document 2 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

3:16-cv-01470-GPC; Related Case No.: 3:15-cr-00029-GPC-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

Morelli’s supervised release term commenced on February 24, 2017. (Dkt. No. 

87.)

LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 2255 allows a court to “vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence” of a 

federal prisoner on “the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the 

Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to 

impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by 

law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Where a 

petitioner exhausts or waives his direct appeal, the Court is entitled to presume that he 

stands fairly convicted. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 164 (1982). However, §

2255 warrants relief if a prisoner alleges a constitutional or jurisdictional error, or a 

“fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice [or] an 

omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.” United States v. 

Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783 (1979) (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 

(1962)).

DISCUSSION

Morelli contends he is entitled to habeas relief in light of the Supreme Court’s

decision in Johnson. (Id.) His claims fail for the reasons set forth below.

A. Johnson is Inapplicable.

In Johnson, the Supreme Court examined language from the ACCA, which 

provides for a mandatory sentence of fifteen years of imprisonment for a defendant who 

violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and has three prior convictions for a “violent felony” or a 

“serious drug offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). There are three “clauses” in the statute 

defining what type of prior crime qualifies as a “violent felony”: (1) the “elements” 

clause: “has an element the use, or attempted use, or threatened use of physical force 

against the person of another”; (2) the “enumerated offenses” clause: “is burglary, arson, 

or extortion, [or] involves use of explosives”; and (3) the “residual” clause: “or otherwise 

Case 3:16-cv-01470-GPC Document 2 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

3:16-cv-01470-GPC; Related Case No.: 3:15-cr-00029-GPC-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

involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” 18 

U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). 

The Court held that the ACCA’s residual clause is void for vagueness, and that 

“imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal 

Act violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process.” Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2563.

Put simply, a statute can be void for vagueness “‘if it fails to provide people of ordinary 

intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits’ or ‘if it 

authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’” Id. at 2566 

(quoting Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732 (2000)). Rather than “gauging the riskiness 

of conduct in which an individual defendant engages on a particular occasion,” the 

residual clause “requires application of the ‘serious potential risk’ standard to an 

idealized ordinary case of the crime.” Id. at 2561. No “principled and objective 

standard” could identify what crimes fell under its language. Id. at 2557. Thus, the 

residual clause violates due process, as it “both denies fair notice to defendants and 

invites arbitrary enforcement by judges.” Id. 

Johnson is inapplicable to Morelli’s case. First, Morelli was not sentenced under 

the ACCA. Morelli pleaded guilty to charges under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 

(v)(II). (Dkt. No. 40.) Second, he received an increased sentence pursuant to USSG § 

2L1.1(b)(6), not the ACCA’s residual clause. (Dkt. No. 68.) The retroactive holding in 

Johnson does not provide Morelli with a vehicle for relief. 

B. USSG § 2L1.1(b)(6) is Not Void for Vagueness.

Morelli argues that USSG § 2L1.1(b)(6) is void for vagueness. In other words, he 

argues he is entitled to habeas relief because the residual clause analysis in Johnson

applies equally to USSG § 2L1.1(b)(6)’s “specific offense characteristics” clause.8(Dkt. 

No. 40.) 

 

8 USSG § 2L1.1(b)(6) provides: “If the offense involved intentionally or recklessly creating a 

substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person, increase by 2 levels, but if the 

resulting offense level is less than level 18, increase to level 18.”

Case 3:16-cv-01470-GPC Document 2 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

3:16-cv-01470-GPC; Related Case No.: 3:15-cr-00029-GPC-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

First, the Supreme Court recently held in Beckles v. United States that the Federal 

Sentencing Guidelines “are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process 

clause.” 137 S. Ct. 886, 890 (2017). Unlike the ACCA, “the advisory Guidelines do not 

fix the permissible range of sentences,” but “merely guide the exercise of a court’s 

discretion in choosing an appropriate sentence within the statutory range.” Id. at 892. 

Here, this Court exercised its discretion in increasing Morelli’s sentence under USSG § 

2L1.1(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 68.) 

Moreover, while USSG § 2L1.1(b)(6) uses the phrase “substantial risk,” the 

Supreme Court expressly noted that its holding in Johnson “does not put other criminal 

laws that use terms such as ‘substantial risk’ in doubt, because those laws generally 

require gauging the riskiness of an individual’s conduct on a particular occasion, not the 

riskiness of an idealized ordinary case of the crime.” 135 S. Ct. at 2554; see also id. at 

2561 (“As a general matter, we do not doubt the constitutionality of laws that call for the 

application of a qualitative standard such as ‘substantial risk’ to real-world conduct.”). 

Therefore, Morelli’s claim that USSG § 2L1.1(b)(6) is void for vagueness does not afford 

him habeas relief. 

C. Morelli’s Additional Claims Fail.

Morelli makes additional contentions in his reply brief. He claims he was (1) a 

passenger when the car was pulled over; and (2) never given notice by defense counsel of 

the sentence enhancement and would have otherwise gone to trial. (Dkt. No. 86.) Both 

of Morelli’s additional claims lack merit. First, Morelli admitted to knowingly 

transporting or moving, or attempting to transport or move aliens to help them remain in 

the United States, and accordingly pleaded guilty to 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1 )(A)(ii). (Dkt. 

No. 40.) Upon executing the plea agreement, Morelli signed a waiver certifying he was 

given notice of the applicable sentencing guidelines and that sentencing is in the 

discretion of the Court. (Id.) He also signed the plea agreement, indicating that he was 

aware any sentence prediction made by defense counsel was merely a recommendation 

and not binding. (Id.) Therefore, Morelli’s belated contentions are meritless.

Case 3:16-cv-01470-GPC Document 2 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

3:16-cv-01470-GPC; Related Case No.: 3:15-cr-00029-GPC-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

D. Evidentiary Hearing

“Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the 

prisoner is entitled to no relief,” the Court must hold an evidentiary hearing on the merits 

of a § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). However, a district court may deny a § 2255 

motion without an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Rodrigues-Vega, 797 F.3d 781, 

791 (9th Cir. 2015). An evidentiary hearing is unnecessary if the allegations, “when 

viewed against the record, do not state a claim for relief or are so palpably incredible or 

patently frivolous as to warrant summary dismissal.” United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d

1111, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, for the aforementioned reasons, Morelli’s allegations clearly do not state a 

claim for relief. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner’s claims do not merit an 

evidentiary hearing.

E. Certificate of Appealability 

Pursuant to 28 § U.S.C. 2253 (c) a petitioner may not appeal from a final order in a 

proceeding under § 2255, or be granted a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) unless he 

has “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” “A petitioner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the 

district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude that 

the issues presented here are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). “When the district court denies a habeas 

petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional 

claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would 

find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

claim and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 

correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000).

Here, jurists of reason would not disagree with the Court’s ruling that Morelli’s §

2255 petition lacks merit. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a COA.

/ / / / 

Case 3:16-cv-01470-GPC Document 2 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

3:16-cv-01470-GPC; Related Case No.: 3:15-cr-00029-GPC-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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set 

Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Clerk of the Court shall close 

the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 17, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01470-GPC Document 2 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7