Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Martinez

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 19, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
LUCAS MARTINEZ, Defendant.

          ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S LETTER DATED JUNE 27, 2016

          MAXINE M. CHESNEY, United States District Judge

         Before the Court is defendant's letter, dated June 27, 2016, and filed with the Clerk of Court on July 1, 2016. In his letter, defendant refers to a "new law that just went into effect this month of June 2016, " which law he describes as "the Johnson law the Arm[ed] Career Criminal Act, " and asks the Court to review his case to determine if, in light of the new law, he would or would not qualify for a reduction in his sentence.

         It would appear the new law to which defendant refers is Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), in which the Supreme Court found, on June 26, 2015, that the "residual clause" found in the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA") was unconstitutional.

         The "residual clause" is found in a section of the ACCA defining the term "violent felony" and is set forth below in italics:

[T]he term “violent felony" means any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, or any act of juvenile delinquency involving the use or carrying of a firearm, knife, or destructive device that would be punishable by imprisonment for such term if committed by an adult, that--
(1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or
(2) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another[.]

See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) (emphasis added). The term "violent felony, " in turn, is found in another section of the ACCA, which provides that "a person who violates section 922(g) of [title 18] and has three previous convictions by any court . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another, " shall be "imprisoned not less than fifteen years." See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).

         Here, defendant was not convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), but, rather of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii). Additionally, as the United States Probation Office stated in defendant's Presentence Investigation Report, and each of the parties acknowledged in their respective sentencing memorandums, defendant has no prior conviction of any kind, let alone three. Under such circumstances, the holding in Johnson would appear to be inapplicable to defendant.

         The Court next considers whether defendant may be entitled to a reduction under a theory that the "residual clause" found in the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") is unconstitutional in light of the reasoning set forth in Johnson.

The "residual clause" in the U.S.S.G. is found in the guideline defining the term "crime of violence" and is set forth below in italics:
The term “crime of violence” means any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that--
(1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or
(2) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.