United States v. Gonzalez
1:11-cr-00026
N.D. Ind.Apr 17, 2017Background
- Defendant Joseph Luna filed a § 2255 Motion to Correct Sentence arguing Johnson v. United States invalidated the Guidelines’ residual clause and thus his Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) was unlawful.
- The Government notified the Court of Beckles v. United States, where the Supreme Court held the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges, preserving the Guidelines’ residual clause.
- Luna moved to withdraw his § 2255 motion as futile in light of Beckles.
- The Court declined to immediately grant the withdrawal and explained AEDPA’s one-opportunity rule and the bar on second or successive § 2255 motions without circuit authorization.
- The Court explained that even voluntarily withdrawn § 2255 motions can “count” as the petitioner’s one opportunity (triggering the second-or-successive bar) depending on circumstances (citing Felder/Potts distinctions).
- The Court gave Luna a deadline to supplement or confirm withdrawal and warned that the procedural consequences of withdrawal will matter if Luna later files another habeas petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Luna) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson invalidates the Guidelines’ residual clause and voids Luna’s enhancement | Johnson renders the identically worded Guidelines residual clause unconstitutional, so Luna’s enhancement is unlawful | Beckles forecloses vagueness challenges to the Guidelines; Johnson does not apply to the Sentencing Guidelines | Court noted Beckles controls; Luna conceded futility and sought withdrawal but court withheld final ruling on withdrawal |
| Whether Luna may withdraw his § 2255 motion without adverse procedural consequences | Luna seeks to withdraw as futile to avoid an adjudication on the merits | Government relies on AEDPA limits and appellate rules that a withdrawn motion may still count as the one collateral review opportunity | Court explained withdrawal likely will count (per Felder/Potts line) and warned future motions may be second/successive requiring circuit authorization |
| Whether a voluntarily withdrawn § 2255 motion counts as the petitioner’s one AEDPA opportunity | Luna implied withdrawal should avoid adverse consequences | Government argued AEDPA and precedents treat some withdrawals as counting, depending on timing/motivation | Court held this situation aligns with cases where withdrawal counts (Felder/Potts); withdrawal likely triggers second-or-successive rules |
| Whether the court should decide withdrawal now or allow Luna to amend | Luna initially chose withdrawal rather than amend | Government pointed to finality and AEDPA constraints | Court withheld ruling, gave deadline for Luna to supplement and advised of statute-of-limitations and retroactivity limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (Sup. Ct.) (struck down ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (Sup. Ct.) (held Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges)
- Vitrano v. United States, 643 F.3d 229 (7th Cir.) (one full opportunity for collateral review under AEDPA)
- Felder v. McVicar, 113 F.3d 696 (7th Cir.) (voluntarily dismissed § 2255 can count as first motion when withdrawn after defeat becomes apparent)
- Potts v. United States, 210 F.3d 770 (7th Cir.) (distinguishes withdrawals made before versus after reason to expect denial)