Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51053/USCOURTS-ca5-14-51053-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua Zuniga Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51053

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSHUA ZUNIGA RAMIREZ, also known as Joshua Ramirez, also known as 

Dboy,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CV-241

USDC No. 5:11-CR-785-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joshua Zuniga Ramirez, federal prisoner # 86965-280, appeals the 

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence 

of 180 months of imprisonment; the sentence was imposed following his guilty 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51053 Document: 00513552753 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2016
No. 14-51053

2

plea conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(g), 924(e)(1). We granted Ramirez a certificate of appealability.1

We review the denial of § 2255 relief de novo. United States v. FloresOchoa, 139 F.3d 1022, 1023 (5th Cir. 1998). Ramirez argues that his sentence, 

based on the application of § 924(e)(1) for having three prior convictions of

violent felonies, is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which the Supreme Court 

held to be retroactive to cases on collateral review in Welch v. United States, 

136 S. Ct. 1257, 1268 (2016). 

The record indicates that Ramirez’s prior conviction for possessing a 

deadly weapon in a penal institution was treated as a violent felony under the 

residual clause of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). On the present record and in light of 

Johnson, Ramirez’s sentence is unconstitutional and he is entitled to § 2255 

relief. See § 2255; Welch, 136 S. Ct. at 1268; Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2557-58, 

2563. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s order and REMAND for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We express no opinion 

regarding the district court’s ultimate sentencing decision.

The Government’s motions for summary affirmance and for an extension 

of time in which to file a brief are DENIED, but further briefing is unnecessary. 

See Welch, 136 S. Ct. at 1265, 1268. This resolution renders all outstanding 

motions moot.

 

1 We have jurisdiction to address only the issue specified in the grant of the certificate 

of appealability. See United States v. Daniels, 588 F.3d 835, 836 n.1 (5th Cir. 2009). To the 

extent that Ramirez raises other issues, we do not address them. See id.

 Case: 14-51053 Document: 00513552753 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2016