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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

13-316 - United States of America v. Evans


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
13-316 - United States of America v. Evans
July 1, 2016
PDF | More
Memorandum of Opinion and Order as to VirDez A.Evans. This matter is before the Court upon petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. 23). Petitioners motion is therefore 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 7/1/16. (LC,S) Civil Case 4:16-cv-00410-PAG closed.
March 17, 2017
PDF | More
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: This matter is before the Court upon petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. 23). In his motion, Petitioner relies on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2563 (2015), to argue that he was unconstitutionally sentenced under the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2), which requires that a defendant have two qualifying "crimes of violence." In Johnson, the United States Supreme Court struck down the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act's definition of a "violent felony" as void for vagueness. More recently, however, the Supreme Court held in Beckles v. United States, U.S., S. Ct., 2017 WL 855781 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2017), that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause. Thus, Johnson's vagueness holding does not apply to the Sentencing Guideline provision under which Petitioner was sentenced. Petitioner's motion is therefore 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 3/17/17. (LC,S)