JOSE VALENZUELA V. USA, No. 18-35194 (9th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS VALENZUELA, AKA Jose Luis Valenzuela-Gomez, No. 18-35194 D.C. Nos. Petitioner-Appellant, v. 1:16-cv-00249-EJL 1:03-cr-00032-EJL-2 MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Jose Luis Valenzuela appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Valenzuela contends that the district court erred by denying as untimely his section 2255 motion. He argues that the motion was timely because it was filed within one year of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and the logic of Johnson extends to the residual clause of the mandatory career-offender guideline under which he was sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3); U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1, 4B1.2. This argument is foreclosed because “Johnson did not recognize a new right applicable to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines on collateral review.” United States v. Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2762 (2019). Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that section 2255(f)(3) does not apply and that Valenzuela’s motion is untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). AFFIRMED. 2 18-35194

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.