United States v. Gonzalez
1:05-cr-00072
E.D. Tenn.May 4, 2017Background
- Gonzalez pleaded guilty in 2005 to conspiring to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine; facing a statutory range of 20 years–life due to a prior federal drug conviction.
- PSR classified Gonzalez as a career offender under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 based on (1) a prior federal drug conviction and (2) a Texas burglary of a habitation conviction; Guidelines range calculated at 262–327 months.
- Court granted a government motion for downward departure and sentenced Gonzalez to 188 months; Sixth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2007.
- In 2014 Gonzalez filed a §2255 motion arguing Descamps undermined the use of the modified categorical approach to treat the Texas burglary as a crime of violence.
- In 2016 he supplemented the motion invoking Johnson (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness), arguing Johnson also invalidated the identical Guidelines residual clause and thus his career offender status.
- District court denied relief: Descamps-based claim was time-barred; Johnson-based claim failed because Beckles forecloses vagueness challenges to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Descamps-based claim | Descamps clarified categorical/modified categorical approach; petition timely as later recognition | Government: conviction final in 2007; §2255 one-year limitations expired in 2008; Descamps does not create a new §2255(f)(3) right | Descamps claim is untimely under §2255(f)(1); equitable tolling not warranted — claim dismissed |
| Timeliness of Johnson supplement | Johnson created a new, retroactive right under §2255(f)(3) enabling late filing | Govt: only Johnson could arguably trigger (f)(3); other limitations defenses apply | Johnson could trigger (f)(3) timing analysis, but separate merits issues control |
| Merits — effect of Johnson on Guidelines residual clause | Johnson invalidates residual clause; the Guidelines clause is identical so sentence invalid | Govt: Beckles holds Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges; Johnson does not affect career-offender status under Guidelines | Court held Beckles controls; Johnson does not afford relief under §2255 — claim denied |
| Use of modified categorical approach for Texas burglary | Descamps limits use of modified categorical approach; Gonzalez’s Texas burglary may not qualify as a crime of violence | Govt: PSR and sentencing court properly applied the approach; alternatively timeliness bars review | Court found Descamps claim untimely and did not grant relief on that ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (clarified limits and use of the modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (held Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (held Johnson is substantive and retroactively applicable on collateral review)
- Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (explained when a conviction becomes final for collateral-timing purposes)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (original articulation of the categorical approach for prior offenses)