Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-30
Citations: 683 F. App'x 691
Docket Number: No. 16-2271
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 691–691

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-2271
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Filed March 30, 2017
Matthew M. Beck, Renee Lyn Camacho, Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Mexico, Las Cruces, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Nia Rucker, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of New Mexico, Las Cruces, NM, for Defendant-Appellant
Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
Defendant-Appellant Carlos Perez seeks a certificate of appealability ("COA") to appeal from the district court's denial of his motion to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mr. Perez contends that the calculation of his sentencing guideline range relied on language found unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). The district court found that Mr. Perez's status as a career offender resulted from the application of an enumerated offense (burglary of a dwelling) in § 4B 1.2(a), not the language found wanting in Johnson. But even had that language been applied, the Supreme Court recently held that the void-for-vagueness holding in Johnson does not apply to the Sentencing Guidelines. Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 900-02, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Perez's request for a COA and DISMISS the appeal.