Case Name: Jeremy M. DEPERALTA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-30
Citations: 703 F. App'x 451
Docket Number: No. 16-2187
Parties: Jeremy M. DEPERALTA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 703
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
Jeremy M. DEPERALTA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-2187
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: November 20, 2017
Filed: November 30, 2017
Jeremy M. Deperalta, Pro Se
Bruce E. Clark, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent-Appellee
Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jeremy Deperalta appeals following the district court's- order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Deperalta claimed that his 63-month prison term, which was ' imposed pursuant to the advisory Sentencing Guidelines after he pleaded'guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, was unconstitutional in light of the Su preme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2557-58, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), invalidat.ing as unconstitutionally vague a provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act known as the "residual clause." After the district court denied Deperalta's motion, the Supreme Court issued Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 890, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), holding that advisory Guidelines are not subject to constitutional vagueness challenges under Due Process Clause. The judgment of the district court is thus affirmed, and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri,