Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sedillo v. United States

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

June 14, 2017

PAUL REYES SEDILLO, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

          HONORABLE CARMEN E. GARZA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Petitioner Paul Reyes Sedillo's Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Motion”), (CV Doc. 4), filed June 21, 2016; and Respondent United States' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (“Response”), (CV Doc. 11), filed November 23, 2016.[1] Petitioner has not filed a reply to the Motion, and the time for doing so has passed. Also before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Grant Leave (“Motion to Appoint Counsel”), (CV Doc. 2), filed June 13, 2016, and Respondent United States' Unopposed Motion to Reinstitute § 2255 Proceedings and Set Response Deadline (“Motion to Reinstitute Proceedings), (CV Doc. 10), filed November 2, 2016

         United States District Judge William P. Johnson referred this case to Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Garza to perform legal analysis and recommend an ultimate disposition. (CV Doc. 3). After considering the parties' filings, the record of the case, and relevant law, the Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (CV Doc. 2) and Respondent's Motion to Reinstitute Proceedings (CV Doc. 10) be DENIED AS MOOT, that Petitioner's Motion (CV Doc. 4) be DENIED, and that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         I. Background

         On January 21, 2011, after a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). (CR Doc. 106). Petitioner's presentence report (“PSR”) provided that Petitioner was an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), because he had at least three prior violent felony convictions: two for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and one for aggravated battery. (CV Doc. 9-1 at 6). On October 27, 2011, Petitioner was sentenced to 262 months imprisonment. (CR Doc. 127).

         Petitioner argues that he is no longer an armed career criminal under the ACCA due to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). (CV Doc. 4 at 4). Specifically, Petitioner contends that his convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon are not violent felonies under the ACCA, and that, therefore, he should be resentenced without an ACCA-based enhancement. Id. at 4-9.

         On August 18, 2016, Respondent filed a motion to stay this case until the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in United States v. Maldonado-Palma, 839 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2016). (CV Doc. 7). The issue before the Tenth Circuit in Maldonado-Palma was whether New Mexico's aggravated assault with a deadly weapon statute satisfies the Sentencing Guidelines' force clause, which has similar language as the ACCA's force clause. The Court granted Respondent's motion to stay. (CV Doc. 8).

         On October 25, 2016, the Tenth Circuit issued its decision in Maldonado-Palma, holding that New Mexico's aggravated assault with a deadly weapon statute satisfies the Sentencing Guidelines' force clause without the use of the unconstitutional residual clause. 839 F.3d at 1249-50. Subsequently, Respondent filed its Response to Petitioner's Motion, in which it contends that the Tenth Circuit's decision in Maldonado-Palma is dispositive of Petitioner's argument. (CV Doc. 11 at 6). Respondent argues that, even though the Maldonado-Palma decision concerns the definition of a “crime of violence” in the Sentencing Guidelines, the holding applies equally to the ACCA because “the operative language at issue is the same as that contained in the ACCA.” Id.

         On December 7, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to stay this case pending the disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court by counsel in the Maldonado-Palma case. (CV Doc. 12). The Court granted the stay. (CV Doc. 13). On May 10, 2017, the Court sua sponte entered an order lifting the stay, noting that the United States Supreme Court had denied the petition for writ of certiorari in United States v. Maldonado-Palma, 137 S.Ct. 1214 (2017). (CV Doc. 15). The Court allowed Petitioner fourteen days, until May 24, 2017, to file a reply to his Motion. Id. No reply has been filed and the time for doing so has passed.

         II. Standard of Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

         Section 2255 provides that a federal prisoner may challenge his sentence if: (1) it was imposed in violation of the United States Constitution or federal law; (2) the sentencing court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence exceeded the maximum authorized sentence; or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral review. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). If the court finds that a sentence infringed upon the prisoner's constitutional rights and is subject to collateral review, the court must vacate the sentence and discharge, resentence, or correct the sentence as the court believes appropriate. § 2255(b).

         III. Analysis

         Under the ACCA, an individual who violates § 922(g) (e.g., being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition), and who has “three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, ” will receive a mandatory, minimum 15-year sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The ACCA defines the term “violent felony” as:

[A]ny crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, or any act of juvenile delinquency involving the use or carrying of a firearm, knife, or destructive device that would be punishable by ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.