Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180123_0000158.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:44:51+00:00

Document:
THIS MATTER is before the Court under rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings on the Motion Seeking Sentence Reduction Under Johnson Post-Conviction Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1)filed July 1, 2016 by Movant Sergio Saenz-Amaya (CV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 94) (the “Motion”). Movant Saenz-Amaya seeks relief based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The Court determines that Saenz-Amaya is clearly ineligible for relief under Johnson and will dismiss the Motion.
Saenz-Amaya was charged with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine contrary to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), possession of a firearm during and in relation to and in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and illegal reentry of a removed alien. (CR Doc. 24). Saenz-Amaya pled guilty under the terms of a Plea Agreement to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, as well as the charge of possession of a firearm during and in relation to and in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (CR Doc. 70). Saenz-Amaya was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment followed by three years of unsupervised release. (CR Doc. 76).
In his Motion, Saenz-Amaya contends that, based on Johnson, he should not have received an enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Saenz-Amaya argues that his conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during and in relation to and in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime no longer constitute crimes of violence under the residual clause of § 924(c). (CV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 94).
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Because he seeks § 2255 relief more than one year after his sentencing, Saenz-Amaya seeks collateral review in reliance on a right newly recognized by the Supreme Court in Johnson and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).
18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) (emphasis added). The Johnson Court struck down the italicized residual clause language of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) as unconstitutionally vague. 135 S.Ct. At 2555-63. The language of § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), which defines “violent felony” to mean a crime that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, ” is commonly referred to as the “element” or “force” clause. The “enumerated” clause is the language of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) that lists the crimes of burglary, arson, extortion, or the use of explosives as violent felonies. The Supreme Court expressly stated that its holding with respect to the residual clause does not call into question application of the Act to the four enumerated offenses or the remainder of the definition of a violent felony in § 924(e)(2)(B). 135 S.Ct. at 2563. Therefore, the Johnson decision has no application to sentences enhanced under the force or element clause of § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) or the enumerated clause of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Saenz-Amaya's sentence was not enhanced under § 924(e)(2)(B) of the ACCA. Instead, Saenz-Amaya argues that the Johnson ruling should be applied to the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The question of whether Johnson applies to invalidate the residual clause language of § 924(c)(3)(B) is an unsettled question. In Johnson, the Supreme Court indicated that its ruling did not place the language of statutory provisions like the § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause in constitutional doubt. 135 S.Ct. at 2561. The lower courts have divided on the question of application of the Johnson ruling to § 924(c) and similarly-worded provisions. See United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340, 375-79 (4th Cir. 2016) (declining to find § 924(c) void for vagueness); United States v. Vivas-Ceja, 808 F.3d 719, 723 (7th Cir. 2015) (finding language similar to § 924(c) void for vagueness); Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110, 1120 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding similar language in the Immigration and Nationality Act void); In re Smith, ___ F.3d___, 2016 WL 3895243 at *2-*3 (11th Cir. 2016) (noting the issue but not deciding it in the context of an application for permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion). The question of whether the Johnson holding applies to the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)(B) is presently pending before the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Hopper, 10th Cir. No. 15-2190.

References: § 2255
 v. 
 § 924
 § 2
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 § 924
 v. 
 § 924
 v. 
 § 924
 v. 
 § 2255
 § 924
 v.