Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02097/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02097-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Eloy Sedillo
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: RAYMOND ELOY SEDILLO, 

 Movant.

No. 16-2097

(D.C. Nos. 1:16-CV-00426-MCA-LAM &

1:07-CR-00378-MCA-1)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, GORSUCH, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Movant Raymond Eloy Sedillo, a federal prisoner proceeding through counsel, 

seeks an order authorizing him to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in 

the district court so he may assert a claim for relief based on Johnson v. United States, 

135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).1

 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3). In 2007, Movant was 

convicted of a firearms offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). His sentence for that 

offense was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on his 

having three qualifying prior convictions, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), at least one of which 

was a violent felony. Movant now seeks to file a § 2255 motion challenging his 

enhanced sentence based on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Johnson, which invalidated 

the residual clause in the ACCA’s definition of “violent felony” as unconstitutionally 

vague.

 1 The Federal Public Defender for the District of New Mexico is appointed to 

represent Raymond Eloy Sedillo pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 23, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2097 Document: 01019625059 Date Filed: 05/23/2016 Page: 1 
2

To obtain authorization, Movant must make a prima facie showing that his claim 

meets the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255(h). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C). 

Relevant here is the requirement that the claim rely 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). Based on the information before us, we conclude 

that the Movant has made the required showing. Johnson announced a new rule of 

constitutional law, and the Supreme Court made Johnson retroactive to cases on 

collateral review in Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1265 (2016).

Accordingly, we grant Raymond Eloy Sedillo authorization to file a second or 

successive § 2255 motion in the district court to raise a claim based on Johnson v. United 

States.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-2097 Document: 01019625059 Date Filed: 05/23/2016 Page: 2