Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

07-10171 - USA v. Deas

Download Files


Document in Context
07-10171 - USA v. Deas
March 22, 2017
PDF | More
Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered as to Charles Deas (1) Petitioner, Charles Deas, has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate and correct his sentence (Docket No. 82). Deas argues that his sentence must be vacated because his advisory Guideline sentencing range was calculated under the career offender Guidelines residual clause, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). Deas argues that the Guidelines residual clause is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which held as unconstitutionally vague the identical language in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B).On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 580 U.S. ___, 2017 WL 855781 (March 6, 2017). Beckles held that the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause. Id. (slip op. at 1). Because Petitioner's sentence was enhanced under the guidelines and was not an ACCA sentence, Beckles forecloses the legal basis for his petition. Therefore, Deas's motion (Docket No. 82) is DENIED. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde) Civil Case 1:16-cv-10888-PBS closed.