Santiesteban v. United States
1:16-cv-22211
S.D. Fla.Jul 6, 2016Background
- Movant Darvis Santiesteban pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (21 U.S.C. §841/846) and conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. §1956(h)).
- At sentencing (July 29, 2013) the PSR designated him a career offender under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 based on a 1997 Florida aggravated assault/battery with a deadly weapon and a 2002 Florida drug conviction, raising his base offense level and producing a Guidelines range of 262–327 months; court imposed 262 months concurrent with a 240-month term on Count 2.
- Conviction became final on November 21, 2014, when the Supreme Court denied certiorari; movant filed a pro se §2255 motion on June 12, 2016 asserting Johnson-based relief.
- Movant contends Johnson v. United States (2015) -- which invalidated the ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness -- likewise invalidates the nearly identical residual clause in the Sentencing Guidelines and thus undermines his career-offender status.
- The Magistrate Judge concluded the §2255 motion is time-barred because it was filed more than one year after the judgment became final and Johnson does not extend the filing period for career-offender challenges under controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent, but recommended a stay pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles v. United States because that case would resolve circuit disagreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under §2255(f) | Santiesteban: Johnson (June 26, 2015) is a new right under §2255(f)(3), so filing within one year of Johnson is timely | Government: Judgment final Nov 21, 2014; §2255 filed June 12, 2016 is untimely; Johnson does not revive filing deadline for Guidelines career-offender claims per controlling precedent | Motion is time-barred; Johnson does not render this filing timely under Eleventh Circuit law |
| Applicability of Johnson to Guidelines residual clause | Santiesteban: Guidelines residual clause is identical to ACCA residual clause and void for vagueness under Johnson, so career-offender enhancement invalid | Government: Vagueness doctrine applies to punitive statutes (like ACCA) not to advisory Guidelines; Eleventh Circuit precedent rejects vagueness challenge to §4B1.2 residual clause | Eleventh Circuit precedent forecloses Johnson-based attack on career-offender Guidelines provision; merits not decided due to timeliness |
| Equitable tolling / pro se status excuse | Santiesteban: pro se status and timing of Johnson justify tolling or timely filing | Government: ignorance of law or pro se status do not constitute extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling | Equitable tolling denied; pro se status/ignorance insufficient |
| Stay pending Beckles decision | Santiesteban: (implicit) wants decision on Johnson applicability | Government: requests stay to preserve movant’s ability to later file if Beckles favors movant | Magistrate recommends granting government's motion to stay and administratively close the case pending Supreme Court disposition in Beckles |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (liberal construction for pro se pleadings)
- Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (§2255 scope)
- Addonizio v. United States, 442 U.S. 178 (definition of "miscarriage of justice")
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Matchett v. United States, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (vagueness doctrine inapplicable to advisory Sentencing Guidelines)
- Hall v. United States, 714 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2013) (Eleventh Circuit precedent on Guidelines career-offender analysis)
- Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (AEDPA §2255 one-year period begins after direct review ends)
- Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (limitations period for newly recognized rights runs from decision date)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (when evidentiary hearing required)