Figueroa v. United States
3:16-cv-01862
N.D. Tex.Sep 26, 2017Background
- Movant Chris Frank Figueroa, a federal prisoner, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)) and was sentenced on August 26, 2015 to 54 months’ imprisonment (below the 10‑year statutory maximum).
- Figueroa did not pursue a direct appeal; he filed a timely pro se § 2255 motion signed June 22, 2016.
- He raises three claims: two challenging the Sentencing Guidelines calculation (grounds 1–2), and one arguing Johnson v. United States applies to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2’s definition of “crime of violence” (ground 3).
- The guideline base level (22) stemmed from § 2K2.1(a)(3) because of a prior 2008 Texas robbery conviction treated as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2.
- The government opposed the motion; Figueroa did not file a reply. The magistrate judge recommends denial of all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Challenge to guideline calculation (ground 1) | Figueroa contends the court misapplied Sentencing Guidelines in calculating his sentence | Guideline application errors are not cognizable on § 2255 collateral attack absent cause and prejudice | Denied — guideline calculation challenge is not cognizable on § 2255 and Figueroa failed to show cause/prejudice |
| 2. Challenge to guideline calculation/consideration (ground 2) | Figueroa asserts the court relied on career‑offender/status factors in sentencing | Same: collateral review is improper for mere guideline errors, especially where sentence below statutory maximum | Denied — no relief; procedural default without cause/prejudice shown |
| 3. Applicability of Johnson to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 (ground 3) | Figueroa argues Johnson’s void‑for‑vagueness holding for ACCA residual clause should extend to the advisory Guidelines’ § 4B1.2 definition of “crime of violence” | Court and government rely on Beckles: advisory Guidelines do not set statutory maximums and are not subject to vagueness challenge | Denied — Beckles forecloses extending Johnson to advisory Guidelines; Johnson is not a basis to invalidate § 4B1.2 |
Key Cases Cited
- Acklen v. United States, 47 F.3d 739 (5th Cir. 1995) (§ 2255 reserved for constitutional errors and narrow claims that could not have been raised on direct appeal)
- Shaid v. United States, 937 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (procedural default rule: must show cause and actual prejudice to raise issues first in § 2255)
- Walker v. United States, 68 F.3d 931 (5th Cir. 1995) (sentencing‑guideline calculation alone is not cognizable in § 2255)
- Martin v. United States, 564 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2009) (ACCA violent‑felony determinations bear on Guidelines’ crimes‑of‑violence definition)
- Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. _ (2016) (Teague retroactivity: Johnson is substantive and retroactive on collateral review)
- Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. _ (2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural rules for objections to magistrate judge recommendations)