Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-08058/USCOURTS-ca10-16-08058-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Cardoza-Sarabia
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: ROBERTO CARDOZA-SARABIA, 

a/k/a Roberto Sarabia Cardoso, a/k/a Pelon, 

 Movant.

No. 16-8058

(D.C. Nos. 2:12-CV-00230-ABJ & 

2:09-CR-000136-ABJ-1)

(D. Wyo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Roberto Cardoza-Sarabia seeks authorization to file a second or successive 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. For the following reasons, we deny authorization.

We may authorize the filing of a second or successive § 2255 motion if it is based 

on “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the 

Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2); see also id. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(C). Mr. Roberto Cardoza-Sarabia asserts that his sentence is now 

unconstitutional and in excess of the maximum authorized by law based on the new rule 

of constitutional law announced in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). 

In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that “imposing an increased sentence under 

the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution’s 

guarantee of due process.” 135 S. Ct. at 2563. And in Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 

1257, 1268 (2016), the Court held that Johnson announced a new substantive rule that 

applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. We recently extended Johnson’s reach 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 15, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-8058 Document: 01019638878 Date Filed: 06/15/2016 Page: 1 
2

to defendants seeking authorization who received enhanced sentences under the careeroffender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines because the residual clause in that 

provision mirrors the one declared unconstitutional in Johnson. See In re Encinias, 

___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 1719323, at *2 (10th Cir. Apr. 29, 2016) (per curiam). 

Mr. Cardoza-Sarabia did not receive an increased sentence under the ACCA or an 

enhanced sentence under the career-offender provision of the guidelines. He was 

sentenced to 384 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, possessing a firearm during 

and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), 

encouraging an alien to enter the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1), 

and distributing methamphetamine to a minor in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 859. 

Mr. Cardoza-Sarabia appears to argue that his sentence for the § 924(c)(1)(A) 

conviction is now invalid based on Johnson. See Mot. for Auth. at 8. But the Johnson

decision did not invalidate the sentence enhancement in § 924(c)(1)(A) for possessing a 

firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. 

Accordingly, Mr. Cardoza-Sarabia has failed to make a prima facie showing that 

he is entitled to authorization based on the new rule of constitutional law announced in 

Appellate Case: 16-8058 Document: 01019638878 Date Filed: 06/15/2016 Page: 2 
3

Johnson. This denial of authorization “shall not be appealable and shall not be the 

subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-8058 Document: 01019638878 Date Filed: 06/15/2016 Page: 3