Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    United States v. Taylor, 10th Cir. (2017)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This order denies a defendant's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The defendant argued that the residual clause in USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), which was used to calculate his sentencing guideline range, is unconstitutionally vague like the residual clause struck down in Johnson. However, the Supreme Court recently held in Beckles that, unlike statutory provisions, the sentencing guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges. Therefore, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion is affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Taylor, 10th Cir. (2017)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    64 views2 pages
    This order denies a defendant's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The defendant argued that the residual clause in USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), which was used to calculate his sentencing guideline range, is unconstitutionally vague like the residual clause struck down in Johnson. However, the Supreme Court recently held in Beckles that, unlike statutory provisions, the sentencing guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges. Therefore, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion is affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2017-03-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 16-1350

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This order denies a defendant's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The defendant argued that the residual clause in USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), which was used to calculate his sentencing guideline range, is unconstitutionally vague like the residual clause struck down in Johnson. However, the Supreme Court recently held in Beckles that, unlike statutory provisions, the sentencing guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges. Therefore, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion is affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    64 views2 pages

    United States v. Taylor, 10th Cir. (2017)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This order denies a defendant's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The defendant argued that the residual clause in USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), which was used to calculate his sentencing guideline range, is unconstitutionally vague like the residual clause struck down in Johnson. However, the Supreme Court recently held in Beckles that, unlike statutory provisions, the sentencing guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges. Therefore, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion is affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    FILED

    United States Court of Appeals


    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 13, 2017


    _________________________________
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    No. 16-1350
    v. (D.C. Nos. 1:16-CV-01210-JLK and
    1:13-CR-00400-JLK-1)
    JEFFREY SCOTT TAYLOR, (D. Colo.)

    Defendant - Appellant.
    _________________________________

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*


    _________________________________

    Before HARTZ, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.


    _________________________________

    Defendant Jeffrey Taylor filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 collaterally

    attacking his sentence. He argued that the calculation of his sentencing guideline range

    had relied on the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2) and that the residual clause is

    unconstitutionally vague because it uses essentially the same language as the language in

    the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(b), which was held to be

    unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The district

    court denied the motion but granted a certificate of appealability. We AFFIRM the

    *
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
    precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
    estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
    Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    decision below. In Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781 (S.Ct. Mar.

    6, 2017), the Supreme Court held that the unconstitutional-vagueness holding in Johnson

    does not apply to the residual clause in the sentencing guidelines. The other issues raised

    by the parties are moot.

    Entered for the Court

    Harris L Hartz
    Circuit Judge

    You might also like