ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 138, 146

SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.

On November 21, 2014, this Court sentenced defendant to 60 months imprisonment based on his conviction for a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (conspiring to distribute methamphetamine). The record reflects that the Court determined that defendant's adjusted offense level was 27 and that defendant's Criminal History Category was III, with a resulting sentencing range of 87-108 months. The Court departed downwards in sentencing defendant based on a variety of factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), and (a)(6). The Presentence Report states that defendant is a deportable alien and that he would likely be deported to Mexico upon his release from federal custody. See Final PSR at 2, 14.

On July 1, 2016, defendant filed a pro se motion to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant's motion contends that he may be entitled to relief with regard to his sentence pursuant to a recent Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2251 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA") is unconstitutionally vague, and therefore void. 135 S. Ct. at 2557. Defendant's motion asserts that the Court sentenced defendant to 60 months "due in part for his previous conviction of Inflicting Corporal Injury on Spouse, `a crime of violence,' and his present participation in the conspiracy." Motion at 2 (Dkt. No. 138).1 Defendant's motion argued that under the reasoning of Johnson, the sentencing guidelines under which defendant was sentenced are unconstitutionally vague and therefore that his sentence must be set aside.

In an order filed August 23, 2016, the Court granted the government's motion to stay this action based upon the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Beckles v. United States, No.15-8544. The Court found that a stay was in the interest of judicial efficiency because Beckles would resolve the question of whether the holding of Johnson applied to the sentencing guidelines.

On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Beckles. ___ S. Ct. ____, 2017 WL 855781 (Mar. 6, 2017). The Court held that the federal sentencing guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause. Id. at *6-7.

On March 15, 2017, the government filed a motion to dismiss defendant's § 2255 motion. The government argues that Beckles warrants dismissal because the premise of defendant's § 2255 motion is that Johnson applies to the sentencing guidelines. The Court agrees. The government further notes that according to the Bureau of Prisons inmate locator available at https://www.bop.gov.inmateloc, defendant was released from custody on November 4, 2016. As such, it further appears that defendant's § 2255 motion is moot.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss defendant's § 2255 motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.