Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170428_0000714.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-08-18 22:10:41
Document Index: 464876487

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§2', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

Michael A. Keefe Assistant Federal Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorney for the Petitioner.
Shaheen P. Torgoley Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorney for the Respondent.
Valdez argues that his predicate offense of burglary of a dwelling partially underlying the §2K2.1(a)(2) enhancement is no longer a “crime of violence” in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S.___, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), which struck down the residual clause of the “crime of violence” definition as unconstitutionally vague. Amended Petition at 3-11. Valdez argues that the burglary offense constituted a “crime of violence” only under the now-invalidated residual clause. Amended Petition at 4-11. Valdez therefore asserts that he is entitled to resentencing, because the term of imprisonment to which he agreed in his guilty plea exceeds the guideline range that would have been applicable to his sentence absent the §2K2.1(a)(2) enhancement. See Amended Petition at 1-3, 11. The United States filed its Response to the § 2255 Petition on September 29, 2016, see United States' Response to Valdez' Amendment to Motion to Vacate [a]nd Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed September 29, 2016 (Doc. 8), and Valdez filed his reply on October 5, 2016, see Reply to Government's Response to Defendant's Amendment to Motion to Vacate and Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed October 5, 2016 (Doc. 9). The Honorable Gregory B. Wormuth, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Mexico issued a Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) recommending dismissal of the petition on December 6, 2016. See Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, filed December 6, 2016 (Doc. 10). Valdez filed Objections to the PFRD on December 30, 2016. See Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, filed December 30, 2016 (Doc. 13).
Before the Court could issue a ruling on Valdez' § 2255 Motions, the Supreme Court of the United States of America issued its decision in Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S.___, No. 15-8544, slip op. (March 6, 2017). In Beckles v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the guidelines are not subject to a void-for-vagueness challenge. See 580 U.S., ___ No. 15-8544, slip op. at 5. Magistrate Judge Wormuth ordered that the parties confer and file a joint statement in light of the impact of Beckles v. United States on the merits of the § 2255 Motions. See Order Directing Supplemental Briefing in Light of Beckles, filed March 23, 2017 (Doc. 15). According to Valdez' Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, the parties conferred and agreed that the Court should dismiss Valdez' § 2255 Motion, but disagreed whether the Court should dismiss the case with or without prejudice. See Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice at 2. The United States did not, however, file a response to Valdez' Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice articulating grounds to support its position that the Court should dismiss the § 2255 Motions with prejudice. Having reviewed § 2255 Motions and being fully advised, the Court concludes that the Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice has merit and will grant it.