James Troiano v. United States, 918 F.3d 1082

James Troiano was convicted in 2006 on four counts arising from a convenience-store robbery: Hobbs Act conspiracy (Count 1), Hobbs Act robbery (Count 2), a § 924(c) firearm offense (Count 3), and felon-in-possession enhanced under ACCA (Count 4).
The PSR treated Troiano as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and labeled him an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), producing a Guidelines range of 360 months to life for Counts 1, 2, and 4; Count 3 carried a mandatory consecutive 84 months.
The district court varied below the Guidelines and imposed an aggregate 24-year term: 17 years concurrent on Counts 1, 2, and 4, plus 7 years consecutive on Count 3.
After Johnson v. United States, Troiano filed a § 2255 motion arguing (1) the ACCA enhancement on Count 4 no longer applied, (2) the career-offender Guidelines residual clause was void, and (3) Hobbs Act robbery is not a § 924(c) crime of violence.
The district court granted relief only as to the ACCA enhancement on Count 4, reduced that count to a 10-year maximum (non-ACCA), and left the overall 24-year aggregate sentence unchanged; it denied relief on the Guidelines vagueness claim (citing Beckles) and on the § 924(c) challenge.

Issue	Troiano's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the district court was required to conduct a full resentencing on all counts after partially successful § 2255 relief	Troiano: removing the ACCA enhancement to Count 4 affected the sentencing package and required "unbundling" and full resentencing on all counts	Gov: district court has discretion; it could correct the affected count only because other counts/Guidelines were unaffected	Court: district court did not abuse its discretion in correcting only Count 4; full resentencing is discretionary, not mandatory
Standard of review for a district court’s choice of remedy after § 2255 relief	Troiano: urged de novo review (citing § 2255 denial cases)	Gov: remedial choice merits deference	Court: applies abuse of discretion standard for remedial decisions under § 2255
Whether Beckles forecloses a vagueness challenge to career-offender Guidelines residual clause	Troiano: Guidelines residual clause is vague and invalid post-Johnson	Gov: Beckles forecloses vagueness challenges to advisory Guidelines	Court: Beckles controls; district court correctly denied the due-process vagueness claim (COA denied)
Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c) (force clause)	Troiano: Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence for § 924(c)	Gov: § 924(c) application stands	Court: did not reach or resolve this issue (COA denied for this question)

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause)
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Guidelines are the starting point and initial benchmark for sentencing)
Loher v. Thomas, 825 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for remedial determinations in § 2254 habeas)
United States v. Handa, 122 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 1997) (discussing sentencing-package/unbundling discretion)
United States v. Evans-Martinez, 611 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 2010) (district court may resentencing counts on remand; rule is permissive)
United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting § 2255 mirrors § 2254)
United States v. Swisher, 811 F.3d 299 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing § 2255 denials)
United States v. Brown, 879 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2018) (adopting abuse-of-discretion review for § 2255 remedial choices)
United States v. Binford, 108 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 1997) (discussing rebundling/unbundling of sentencing packages)
United States v. Smith, 103 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that an entire sentence can be revisited when part is vacated)