From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramirez-Perez v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION
Oct 6, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:16-CV-276 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2016)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:16-CV-276 Criminal Case No. 7:14-cr-680

10-06-2016

MARIA ALBEZA RAMIREZ-PEREZ Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody filed by Petitioner Maria Albeza Ramirez-Perez ("Petitioner"). After considering the motion and applicable law, the motion is DISMISSED. I. Brief Background

Dkt. No. 1.

Petitioner was charged and convicted of violating 8 U.S.C. 1326. She was subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment which she is currently serving. Petitioner's judgment is now final as she did not appeal her judgment and the time for appeal has now expired. In the instant motion, Petitioner asserts she is entitled to relief pursuant to Johnson v. United States. II. Discussion

135 S. Ct. 2552 (2016).

Under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255 a federal prisoner who claims that his "sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence." Upon the filing of such a petition, the sentencing court must order a hearing to determine the issues and findings of fact "[u]nless the motions and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief . . . ."

Id.

Here, Petitioner claims relief pursuant to Johnson v. United States. Because Petitioner raises a constitutional challenge to her sentence, her motion is properly asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, Petitioner's motion fails for two reasons.

135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015).

In Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court found the "residual clause" of the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA") to be unconstitutionally vague and then in Welch v. United States the Supreme Court held that the Johnson holding should be applied retroactively. Thus, a prisoner sentenced pursuant to the ACCA may be entitled to relief. Significant to the Court's decision here, Petitioner was not sentenced under the ACCA. Rather, Petitioner was convicted of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced pursuant to that statute. To the extent Petitioner claims the Johnson holding is applicable to sentencing guideline enhancements based on the crime of violence definition found in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), the Fifth Circuit very recently rejected that argument in United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria. Furthermore, Petitioner did not receive a 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) enhancement. Therefore, Johnson does not afford Petitioner any relief. III. Conclusion

Id.

136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016).

No. 15-40041 (Fifth Circuit filed August 5, 2016). --------

It is clear from the face of Petitioner's Motion, as well as the record as it currently stands, that Petitioner is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion to Correct, Vacate, or Set Aside Sentence is DISMISSED. Additionally, should Petitioner seek a certificate of appealability, such is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 6th day of October, 2016.

/s/_________

Micaela Alvarez

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Ramirez-Perez v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION
Oct 6, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:16-CV-276 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2016)
Case details for

Ramirez-Perez v. United States

Case Details

Full title:MARIA ALBEZA RAMIREZ-PEREZ Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION

Date published: Oct 6, 2016

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:16-CV-276 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2016)