Huynh v. United States
3:16-cv-01769
S.D. Cal.Apr 17, 2017Background
- Hung Van Huynh pleaded guilty (Dec. 1, 2011) to distributing 220.8 grams of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and was sentenced to 180 months (June 4, 2012).
- Sentence included a career-offender enhancement under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (§ 4B1.2).
- Hyunh filed a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his career-offender classification in light of Johnson v. United States (2015), which invalidated the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague.
- The Ninth Circuit authorized Hyunh to file the successive § 2255 motion.
- The Government opposed; Hyunh sought time to brief the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Beckles but did not file further briefing.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson v. United States invalidates the Guidelines residual clause in §4B1.2 | Johnson’s invalidation of ACCA’s residual clause should apply to identical language in §4B1.2 | §4B1.2’s residual clause is similarly vague and therefore invalid under Johnson | Denied — Johnson does not render the Guidelines clause invalid post-Beckles |
| Whether Hyunh is entitled to relief on facial review of his §2255 motion | Relief is warranted because career-offender status relied on the residual clause | Motion fails on its face under controlling precedent | Denied — Beckles forecloses vagueness challenges to advisory Guidelines |
| Whether to grant a certificate of appealability | Not directly argued to succeed | Reasonable jurists could not debate the court’s resolution | Denied — no substantial showing of constitutional denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause held unconstitutionally vague)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenges under Due Process)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for certificate of appealability where denial is on the merits)
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) (standards referenced for COA analysis)
- Mendez v. Knowles, 556 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2009) (COA and reasonable-jurists guidance)