U.S. v. Murray, 3:93-cr-00035-HDM-1. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180213996
Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. McKIBBEN , District Judge . Defendant filed a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence contending that his sentence should be vacated because the federal carjacking offense which served as a predicate for his 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence" in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (ECF No. 77). The government responded arguing, in part, that defendant's motion should be
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. McKIBBEN , District Judge . Defendant filed a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence contending that his sentence should be vacated because the federal carjacking offense which served as a predicate for his 18 U.S.C. 924(c) conviction no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence" in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (ECF No. 77). The government responded arguing, in part, that defendant's motion should be d..
More
ORDER
HOWARD D. McKIBBEN, District Judge.
Defendant filed a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence contending that his sentence should be vacated because the federal carjacking offense which served as a predicate for his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence" in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (ECF No. 77). The government responded arguing, in part, that defendant's motion should be denied because federal carjacking does qualify as a crime of violence (ECF No. 81).
Since defendant filed his motion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States v. Gutierrez, 876 F.3d 1254, 1257 (2017) wherein the court held that "the federal offense of carjacking is categorically a crime of violence under § 924(c)." Given the binding nature of the Ninth Circuit's ruling, defendant's motion (ECF No. 77) is DENIED. Because the court's decision in this matter is dispositive, the court declines to address the other arguments raised in the defendant's motion and the government's response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
