Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180319_0000749.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:05:11+00:00

Document:
This matter comes before the Court by way of a motion filed by petitioner Gregory Jones (“Jones” or “Petitioner”), under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate a sentence imposed by judgment of the Court. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons stated herein, the § 2255 motion is dismissed without prejudice.
On June 23, 2016, Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle issued Standing Order 16-2, which noted the large number of cases filed under Johnson and created specific processes for such cases. In re Motions Seeking Collateral Relief on the Basis of Johnson v. United States, Misc. No. 16-11 (JBS), ECF No. 2. Among other things, the Standing Order stayed Johnson cases and permitted motions filed before June 27, 2016 to be filed in the form of short “placeholders.” Id. at 3. It permitted petitioners under Johnson “up to 150 days from June 27, 2016 to file a final memorandum of law supporting relief, ” and it further permitted the government “a period of up to 150 days after the filing of the movant's final memorandum of law to file its response to the motion and memorandum.” Id. at 3-4.
On December 16, 2016, observing that Jones, as an incarcerated, pro se litigant, might not know of Standing Order 16-2, this Court entered an Order alerting him to the Standing Order's effects, directing that the Clerk send him the Standing Order, and granting him an additional forty-five days to file a supporting memorandum of law. (ECF No. 2.) The Court also included the provisions of a Miller Order, directing Jones, within forty-five days, to notify the Court whether he intended to proceed with his initial § 2255 motion as all inclusive or to withdraw his original motion and file an amended version. (Id. at 2-3.) There has been no docket activity since that time.
Since Jones filed his motion, however, the Supreme Court, in Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017), directly addressed the argument that the voiding, in Johnson, of the ACCA residual clause also invalidates the Guidelines residual clause. In Beckles, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected this argument, finding that “[b]ecause the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a due process vagueness challenge, § 4B1.2(a)'s residual clause is not void for vagueness.” (Id. at 897.) As the right Jones now asserts is thus not the same as the right recognized in Johnson, and indeed does not exist, he may not rely on that decision to reset his time to file § 2255 motion.

References: § 2255
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 4
 § 2255