Vernon Jones v. United States , 691 F. App'x 605 ( 2017 )

Case: 16-15717 Date Filed: 07/03/2017 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15717
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:16-cv-22542-WPD
1:12-cr-20217-WPD-1
VERNON JONES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 3, 2017)
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Vernon Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion to vacate as time-barred. This Court granted Jones a certificate of
Case: 16-15717 Date Filed: 07/03/2017 Page: 2 of 2
appealability on whether the district court erred in dismissing Jones’s § 2255
motion as time-barred under § 2255(f)(3) on the ground that Johnson v. United
States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), does not apply to the Sentencing Guidelines.
We review de novo the dismissal of a § 2255 motion as time-barred. Outler
v. United States, 485 F.3d 1273, 1278 (11th Cir. 2007). The Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 establishes a one year statute of limitations for
filing a § 2255 motion, which runs from the latest of four possible triggering dates,
including, as relevant here, “the date on which the right asserted was initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the
Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.”
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).
In Johnson, the Supreme Court invalidated as unconstitutionally vague the
Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause. 135 S. Ct. at 2557-58. Johnson
applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. See Welch v. United States, 136
S. Ct. 1257, 1264-65, 1268 (2016). But in Beckles v. United States, the Supreme
Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a constitutional
vagueness challenge, so the residual clause in the Guidelines remained valid. 137
S. Ct. 886, 894-95 (2017). Because Beckles dictates that Johnson’s rule does not
apply to the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court did not err.
AFFIRMED.
2