United States v. Eulos Knight ( 2019 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 7 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-35708
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01244-BR
3:14-cr-00152-BR-1
v.
EULOS CEASAR KNIGHT, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 7, 2018
Portland, Oregon
Before: FERNANDEZ and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,** District
Judge.
Eulos Ceasar Knight appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge
for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
Even assuming that Knight was ineligible for a sentencing enhancement
under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), in light of
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), Knight failed to show that the
potential for such an enhancement was “demonstrably made the basis for [his]
sentence.” United States v. Hill, — F.3d —, (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States
v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935–36 (9th Cir. 2009)). Pre-sentencing
discussions between the prosecutor and defense counsel about the potential for an
ACCA enhancement, and evidence that Knight considered the potential for an
ACCA enhancement in entering into his plea agreement, do not make it
“abundantly clear” that the district court relied on the potential ACCA
enhancement as the basis for its sentence. Hill, — F.3d at — (quoting Farrow v.
United States, 580 F.2d 1339, 1359 (9th Cir. 1978)). Because the district court did
not impose a sentence based on misinformation of a constitutional magnitude, we
reject Knight’s claim that his due process rights were violated and conclude he is
not entitled to a hearing on that claim.1
AFFIRMED.
1
Because Knight’s motion fails on the merits, we do not reach the
government’s argument that Knight’s motion is untimely. See United States v.
Hill, — F.3d — n.1 (9th Cir. 2019).
2