ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT'S MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 23). The Court has considered Defendant's motion together with the record in this case and, for the reasons set forth below, will dismiss Defendant's motion as time-barred.

Background

Defendant Ramirez-Bejarano pled guilty to the offense of attempted reentry of removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. On January 12, 2015, Defendant was sentenced to a term of 40 months' imprisonment. ECF No. 22. Defendant's advisory sentencing guideline range calculation included a 16-level enhancement pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline Section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for a previous removal following a conviction for a "crime of violence." 1 ECF No. 17 at 5. Defendant filed the instant motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on June 29, 2016.

Analysis

Defendant's motion was filed more than one year after his conviction became final2 and is therefore untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). Defendant has not alleged or demonstrated that any of the alternative limitation periods set forth in Section 2255(f) are applicable with respect to his motion.

Defendant suggests that his motion, filed on June 30, 2016, is timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3)3 in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (AACCA@) as unconstitutionally vague. However, the Supreme Court has subsequently held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a void for vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause and that Johnson is not applicable to the advisory Guidelines. Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017). Therefore, Johnson is not applicable in this case and thus cannot serve to extend the limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).

Conclusion

The Court finds Defendant's motion to be time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f). Accordingly, Defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody is DISMISSED. Additionally, the Court DENIES Defendant a certificate of appealability, as Defendant has not made a substantial showing that he has been denied a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (providing that a certificate shall issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right"). The Clerk's Office shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.