Filed: Apr. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER AND JUDGMENT ENTRY JOHN R. ADAMS , District Judge . The instant matter is before the Court upon Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Doc. 22. The petition is DENIED. The sole issue presented in the pending 2255 motion is Petitioner's contention that he was sentenced under a Guideline provision that reads identically to a statutory provision ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The S
Summary: ORDER AND JUDGMENT ENTRY JOHN R. ADAMS , District Judge . The instant matter is before the Court upon Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Doc. 22. The petition is DENIED. The sole issue presented in the pending 2255 motion is Petitioner's contention that he was sentenced under a Guideline provision that reads identically to a statutory provision ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Su..
More
ORDER AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
JOHN R. ADAMS, District Judge.
The instant matter is before the Court upon Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 22. The petition is DENIED.
The sole issue presented in the pending § 2255 motion is Petitioner's contention that he was sentenced under a Guideline provision that reads identically to a statutory provision ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has resolved this issue:
This Court held in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ____, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), that the identically worded residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B), was unconstitutionally vague. Petitioner contends that the Guidelines' residual clause is also void for vagueness. Because we hold that the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause, we reject petitioner's argument.
Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886, 890 (2017). Accordingly, this Court similarly rejects Petitioner's argument that the Guideline used to calculate his sentence is unconstitutionally vague.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Thomas Blankenship's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody is hereby DENIED.
Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
