Troy Cramer v. United States, No. 16-4427 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Gruender and Benton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. Cramer is not entitled to Section 2255 relief on his claim that he no longer qualified as a career offender as the advisory Guidelines are not subject to a void-for-vagueness challenge. See Beckles v. U.S., 137 S.Ct 886 (2017) [ November 07, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4427 ___________________________ Troy Cramer lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________ Submitted: November 1, 2017 Filed: November 8, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Troy Cramer appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging a sentence imposed when he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 1 The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. methamphetamine. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. Cramer was sentenced as a career offender to 262 months in prison. On appeal he claims his sentence violates due process because he no longer qualifies as a career offender after Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Johnson invalidated as vague the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act. Id. at 2557. Cramer argues that the vagueness invalidation applies to an identically worded former provision in the Sentencing Guidelines, which was applied in his case. Cramer is not entitled to relief under section 2255 because the advisory Guidelines are not subject to a void-for-vagueness challenge. See Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 895 (2017). The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
