Pina v. United States, 3:16-cv-01931

Movant Roberto Jason Pina pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and was sentenced to 96 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release.
Pina did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion seeking resentencing, arguing his sentence was unlawfully enhanced in light of Johnson v. United States.
Johnson invalidated the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague for increasing sentences based on prior violent felonies.
The magistrate judge found Johnson inapplicable because Pina was not sentenced under the ACCA or any statute that increased his penalty based on a prior violent felony.
The judge also noted that Beckles forecloses vagueness challenges to the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, so any attempt to apply Johnson to Guidelines sentencing fails.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson entitles Pina to resentencing	Johnson voids residual-clause enhancements; Pina says his sentence was unlawfully enhanced under that reasoning	Pina was not sentenced under ACCA or any residual-clause enhancement; Guidelines challenges are foreclosed by Beckles	Denied — Johnson does not apply; § 2255 motion meritless

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (holding ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (holding Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause)
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (procedural rule on objections to magistrate judge reports and recommendations)