OTERO v. U.S.

Case No. 16-cv-994-pp.

WILLIAM OTERO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Nature of Suit: 510 Prisoner: Vacate Sentence
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William Otero, Petitioner, Pro Se.

United States of America, Respondent, represented by Jonathan H. Koenig , United States Department of Justice & Lisa A. Wesley , United States Department of Justice.


ORDER DENYING WILLIAM OTERO'S MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE (DKT. NO. 1), DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DISMISSING CASE

PAMELA PEPPER, District Judge.

On July 29, 2016, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted William Otero's application to file a second or successive petition and authorized this court to consider his Johnson claim, along with the government's defenses. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2. The Seventh Circuit assumed that the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague, similarly invalidated the residual clause in the career-offender guideline. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1. On March 6, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886 (2017), holding that the advisory sentencing guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause. Beckles forecloses Otero's argument that his sentence violated the Due Process Clause "because it relied on the unconstitutionally vague residual clause of the career-offender" guidelines. Dkt. No. 1 at 5.

The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because after Beckles, the petitioner cannot demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate that the motion should be resolved in a different manner or that issue presented is adequate to deserve further encouragement. 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2); Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004).

The court DENIES petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence. Dkt. No. 1. The court DECLINES TO ISSUE a certificate of appealability. The court DISMISSES the case.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases