James Villa v. United States, No. 16-4063 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. The advisory guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause. Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4063 ___________________________ James Villa, lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant, v. United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: November 1, 2017 Filed: November 14, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.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 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 court1 denied relief, and Villa appeals. 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-
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.
