United States v. House

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
April 27, 2017
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 16-1413
v.
(D.C. Nos. 1:16-CV-01418-LTB &
1:12-CR-00246-LTB-1)
ALDEN PATTON HOUSE,
(D. Colo.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Mr. Alden P. House pleaded guilty to one count of being a Prohibited
Person in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(2). He was sentenced to sixty-four months’ imprisonment and three years’
supervised release, grounded in part on an increased base offense level under
§ 2K2.1(a)(2) of the 2011 edition of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the
“Guidelines”). Section 2K2.1(a)(2) relies in turn on Guidelines § 4B1.2(a)’s
definition of “crime of violence.” Mr. House did not directly appeal his sentence.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States,
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.
--- U.S. ----, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), Mr. House moved the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado to vacate his sentence. He argued that Johnson, which
had struck down the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act as void for
vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, rendered his
sentence under identical language in Guidelines § 4B1.2(a) invalid. In response,
the government argued that Johnson did not apply retroactively to cases on
collateral review concerning sentences under the residual clause of the
Guidelines. Agreeing with the government, the district court denied relief but
granted a certificate of appealability. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, we affirm.
In Welch v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), the
Supreme Court made Johnson’s holding retroactive to cases on collateral review.
Id. at 1265. However, in Beckles v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 137 S. Ct. 886(2017), the Court established that the Guidelines are not subject to a void-for-
vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id.
at 890; see also United States v. Snyder, 852 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2017) (following
Beckles). Thus, Beckles forecloses Mr. House’s argument that his Guidelines
sentence violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause under Johnson.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
-2-
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore submitted without
oral argument.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Jerome A. Holmes
Circuit Judge
-3-