Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01495/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01495-0/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 

FILED 

APR 0 8 2019 

CLERK US DIS RIC COURT 

SOUTHERN DI TRI T OF CALIFORNIA 

BY DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEREMY ADAM DALTON, 

Movant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent. 

Case No.: 3:16-cv-1495-BEN 

3: 12-cr-3367-BEN 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR 

CORRECT A SENTENCE UNDER 

28 u.s.c. § 2255 

Movant Jeremy Adam Dalton filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a 

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Respondent, the United States opposes the 

motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion. 

BACKGROUND 

In 2012, Dalton was charged with the crime of being a felon in possession of 

firearms and ammunition. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Dalton was sentenced 

to 51 months in prison in April 2013. As part of his plea agreement and during the 

sentencing, Dalton waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence. In June 

2016, he filed the instant motion for collateral relief under§ 2255. 

Under § 2255, a movant is entitled to relief if the sentence: ( 1) was imposed in 

violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States; (2) was given by a court 

3: l 6-cv-1495-BEN 

3:12-cr-3367-BEN 

Case 3:16-cv-01495-BEN Document 2 Filed 04/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 without jurisdiction to do so; (3) was in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by 

2 law; or (4) is otherwise subject to collateral attack. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

3 DISCUSSION 

4 The motion fails on several grounds. First, Movant validly waived his right to 

5 collaterally attack his sentence. The record discloses no issues as to the voluntariness of 

6 the plea and waiver. Second, under § 2255(f), the motion is untimely as it was filed more 

7 than twelve months after his conviction became final. Here, the motion is untimely and 

8 is barred by the statute of limitations. Third, contrary to his contentions, Movant's 

9 sentence was not unconstitutionally enhanced under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 

10 2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court considered language in the Armed Career 

11 Criminal Act ("ACCA"). The Supreme Court examined the definition of"violent 

12 felony" and held that a portion of that definition known as the "residual clause" is void 

13 for vagueness. However, Movant was not sentenced under the residual clause of the 

14 violent felony definition of the ACCA. Rather, he was sentenced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

15 § 3553 as guided by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines§ 2K2.l(a). When it was still an 

16 open question, Movant challenged the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as unconstitutionally 

17 vague based on the same reasoning as Johnson. However, since the motion was filed, the 

18 Supreme Court has rejected the argument in Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 

19 (2017), holding that the federal Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness 

20 challenges under the Due Process Clause. 

21 Therefore, the motion is denied because: (1) Movant validly waived his right to 

22 collateral attack; (2) the motion is barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) the motion 

23 is without merit. 

24 CONCLUSION 

25 The Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence is DENIED. 

26 A court may issue a certificate of appealability where the movant has made a 

27 "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," and reasonable jurists could 

28 debate whether the motion should have been resolved differently, or that the issues 

2 

3:16-cv-1495-BEN 

3: 12-cr-3367-BEN 

Case 3:16-cv-01495-BEN Document 2 Filed 04/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 presented deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

2 322, 335 (2003). This Court finds that Movant has not made the necessary showing. A 

3 certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 

4 IT IS SO ORDE 

5 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

NITEZ 

3:16-cv-1495-BEN 

3: 12-cr-3367-BEN 

Case 3:16-cv-01495-BEN Document 2 Filed 04/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3