History
  • No items yet
midpage
James Villa v. United States
701 F. App'x 534
| 8th Cir. | 2017
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket

*1 Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In 2013, James Villa pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and he was sentenced as a career offender to 164 months in prison. In 2015, Villa filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, claiming that his sentence violated his rights under the Due Process Clause because he no longer qualified as a career offender after Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Johnson held that *2 the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague. Villa argued by extension that an identically-worded provision of the Sentencing Guidelines applied in his case, USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) (2013), was also unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied relief, and Villa appeals. [1]

Assuming without deciding that Villa’s claim was not waived in his plea agreement, Villa is not entitled to relief under § 2255 because the advisory Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause. Beckles v. United States , 137 S. Ct. 886, 895 (2017).

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

[1] The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2-

Case Details

Case Name: James Villa v. United States
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Date Published: Nov 14, 2017
Citation: 701 F. App'x 534
Docket Number: 16-4063
Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.