Opinion ID: 4508991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rosales-Diaz’s First Claim

Text: As an initial matter, Rosales-Diaz claims that Johnson and Dimaya render his 10-year sentence unlawful because, without § 16(b)’s residual clause, his two prior Florida convictions—burglary of an occupied dwelling and discharging a firearm from a vehicle—no longer qualify as “aggravated felonies” under § 16(b). Rosales-Diaz suggests that he would have faced a statutory maximum penalty of only 2 years’ imprisonment under § 1326(a), rather than 20 years’ imprisonment 11 Case: 16-17304 Date Filed: 02/20/2020 Page: 12 of 17 under § 1326(b).4 Rosales-Diaz is incorrect. In its § 2255 order, the district court properly concluded that, even without § 16(b)’s residual clause, Rosales-Diaz was subject to the 10-year statutory maximum sentence under § 1326(b)(1) because his prior removal was still subsequent to a felony. Namely, while Rosales-Diaz’s two above prior Florida convictions may no longer constitute “aggravated felonies” under § 1326(b)(2), they still constitute felonies under § 1326(b)(1). See Fla. Stat. §§ 810.02(3)(a), 790.15(2). Thus, even after Dimaya invalidated § 16(b), RosalesDiaz’s 10-year sentence on its face was and remains lawful because it falls within the statutory maximum penalty for his § 1326(a) conviction.