United States v. Garza, 2:11-cr-00074

In 2011 Garza pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and was sentenced to 84 months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.
The court applied U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 and assigned a base offense level of 24 based on two prior felony convictions: a 2005 Indiana criminal recklessness conviction and a 2009 Illinois burglary conviction.
In 2016 Garza filed a § 2255 motion (2016 civil docket) arguing his sentence should be vacated under Johnson v. United States because the Guidelines’ residual clause in § 4B1.2 is void for vagueness.
Garza did not appeal his 2011 conviction and did not file a § 2255 motion within the one-year limitations period after his conviction became final.
The court concluded Johnson’s invalidation of the ACCA residual clause does not apply to § 4B1.2’s residual clause in the advisory (post-Booker) Guidelines based on Beckles and controlling Seventh Circuit precedent.
The court denied relief under § 2255 as untimely and meritless, denied a certificate of appealability, and entered final judgment dismissing the § 2255 proceeding with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garza's § 2255 challenge is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) based on Johnson	Garza: Johnson announced a new rule invalidating residual clauses; his § 2255 filed within one year of Johnson is timely	Government: Johnson does not make Garza’s claim timely because Johnson does not apply to the advisory Guidelines residual clause used to enhance Garza’s sentence	Denied — Johnson does not apply to the advisory Guidelines residual clause; motion is untimely and subject to dismissal
Whether Johnson invalidates a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)	Garza: The Guidelines residual clause mirrors ACCA’s and is unconstitutional under Johnson	Government: Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles forecloses applying Johnson to advisory Guidelines enhancements; Seventh Circuit precedent agrees	Denied — Beckles controls; Johnson does not invalidate advisory Guidelines residual clause
Whether an evidentiary hearing is required on the § 2255 motion	Garza: (implicit) factual or legal errors merit further proceedings	Government: Record and law conclusively show no relief is warranted	Denied — record conclusively shows no entitlement to relief; no hearing needed
Whether a certificate of appealability should issue	Garza: issues are debatable under Johnson	Government: Controlling precedent makes the issues non-debatable	Denied — reasonable jurists would not debate the outcome; COA denied

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson applies retroactively on collateral review)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (held Sentencing Guidelines advisory post-Booker)
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (held Johnson does not apply to advisory Guidelines’ residual clause)
Sotelo v. United States, 922 F.3d 848 (7th Cir.) (applying Beckles to Seventh Circuit practice)
Perry v. United States, 877 F.3d 751 (7th Cir.) (same)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)