Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180531_0001149.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:50:48+00:00

Document:
Blake Gallardo USP Terre Haute Terra Haute, Indiana Movant pro se.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant/Movant's hand-written filing that the Court received and filed on January 19, 2017 (CR Doc. 92)(“Filing”). The Court has reviewed the docket in Defendant/Movant Blake Gallardo's criminal case, No. CR 15-1504. The Court determines that Gallardo's Filing does not articulate any grounds for relief, and the Court will dismiss the Filing.
I became aware of the residual clause that falls under the Johnson issue I know that the deadline for the Johnson case was June 26, 2016 At that time I was on lockdown I'm not good with any of the legal terms but I would like to know if the Johnson residual clause apply to me.
a court recharacterizes a pro se litigant's motion as a first § 2255 motion . . .the district court must notify the pro se litigant that it intends to recharacterize the pleading, warn the litigant that this recharacterization means that any subsequent § 2255 motion will be subject to the restriction on “second or successive” motions, and provide the litigant an opportunity to withdraw the motion or to amend it so that it contains all the § 2255 claims he believes he has.
Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. at 383. Because, as set out below, Gallardo would never be eligible for relief under Johnson v. United States, the Court declines to construe his hand-written filing as a First § 2255 motion and a subsequent § 2255 motion will not be subject to the restrictions on second or successive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves the use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.

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