Martinez v. United States of America, No. 1:2016cv00388 - Document 21 (D.N.M. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James O. Browning, the Defendant/Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, 5 the Defendant/Movant's Motion to Vacate and Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, (CR Doc. 58); and the Defendant/Movant's Supplemental Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, 12 are dismissed with prejudice (meq).

Download PDF
Martinez v. United States of America Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent, vs. Nos. CIV 16-0388 JB/SMV CR 09-2619 JB ERNIE MARTINEZ, Defendant/Movant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF MOTION TO CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 THIS MATTER comes before the Court, under rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, on (i) the Defendant/Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed June 22, 2016 (CIV Doc. 5)(“§ 2255 Motion”); (ii) the Defendant/Movant’s Motion to Vacate and Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed May 5, 2016 (CR Doc. 58)(“Amended Motion”); and (iii) the Defendant/Movant’s Supplemental Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed July 29, 2016 (CIV Doc. 12)(“Suppl. Motion”). In his § 2255 Motion, Defendant/Movant Ernie Martinez alleges that he improperly received an enhanced sentence as a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, because U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague under the reasoning in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). In Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. ___, No. 15-8544, slip op (March 6, 2017), the Supreme Court of the United States of America held that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a void-for-vagueness challenge. See 580 U.S. ___, No. 15-8544, slip op at 5. Pursuant to the Court’s Order, filed March 13, 2017 (CR Doc. 75), the parties have filed a Dockets.Justia.com Statement that the ruling in Beckles is dispositive of all issues raised in Martinez’ § 2255 Motion, Amended Motion, and Suppl. Motion, and that the Court should dismiss his § 2255 with prejudice. See Proposed Joint Statement, filed March 22, 2017 (CR Doc. 76). Martinez is not entitled to relief, and the Court will dismiss his § 2255 Motion, Amended Motion, and Suppl. Motion under rule 4. IT IS ORDERED that: (i) the Defendant/Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed June 22, 2016 (CIV Doc. 5); (ii) the Defendant/Movant’s Motion to Vacate and Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed May 5, 2016 (CR Doc. 58); and (iii) the Defendant/Movant’s Supplemental Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed July 29, 2016 (CIV Doc. 12), are dismissed with prejudice under rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Counsel: James D. Tierney Acting United States Attorney Jon K. Stanford Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney’s Office Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for the Plaintiff/Respondent Jason Bowles Bowles Law Firm Albuquerque, New Mexico -- and -Roberto Albertorio Albuquerque, New Mexico -2- -- and -David A. Streubel Cunningham, Vogel & Rost, P.C. Saint Louis, Missouri -- and -John Van Butcher Office of the Federal Public Defender Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for the Defendant/Movant -3-

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.