McKenzie v. United States of America, No. 1:2016cv00740 - Document 16 (D.N.M. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James O. Browning, the Defendant/Movant's Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. section 2255, 1 the Defendant/Movant's Supplemental Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. section 2255, 6 are dismissed with prejudice. (meq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McKenzie v. United States of America Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent, vs. Nos. CIV 16-0740 JB/KBM CR 08-1669 JB RICHARD MCKENZIE, 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 Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed June 22, 2016 (CIV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 219)(“§ 2255 Motion”), and (ii) the Defendant/Movant’s Supplemental Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed August 9, 2016 (CIV Doc. 6; CR Doc. 223)(“Supplemental Motion”). In his § 2255 Motion and Supplemental Motion, Defendant/Movant Richard McKenzie, 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 held that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a void-forvagueness challenge. See 580 U.S. ___, No. 15-8544, slip op at 5. Pursuant to the Court’s Order, filed March 9, 2017 (CIV Doc. 14; CR Doc. 230), the parties have filed a Statement that the ruling in Beckles vs. United States is dispositive of all issues that McKenzie’s § 2255 Motion and Supplemental Motion raise, and that the Court should dismiss his § 2255 proceeding with Dockets.Justia.com prejudice. See Proposed Joint Statement, filed March 14, 2017 (CIV Doc. 15; CR Doc. 231). McKenzie is not entitled to relief, and the Court will dismiss, under rule 4, his § 2255 Motion and Supplemental Motion. IT IS ORDERED that: (i) the Defendant/Movant’s Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed June 22, 2016 (CIV Doc. 1; CR Doc. 219), and (ii) the Defendant/Movant’s Supplemental Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed August 9, 2016 (CIV Doc. 6; CR Doc. 223), are dismissed with prejudice. ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Counsel: Jason Bowles Bowles Law Firm Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorney for the Defendant/Movant Damon P. Martinez United States Attorney Samuel A. Hurtado Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney’s Office Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for the Plaintiff/Respondent -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.
