James Villa v. United States

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[Unpublished]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-