Nguyen Van Nguyen v. United States , 692 F. App'x 989 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •             Case: 16-17674   Date Filed: 07/07/2017   Page: 1 of 2
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 16-17674
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket Nos. 1:16-cv-02626-TWT; 1:06-cr-00299-TWT-LTW-1
    NGUYEN VAN NGUYEN,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (July 7, 2017)
    Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Nguyen Van Nguyen appeals the dismissal of his motion to vacate as
    Case: 16-17674      Date Filed: 07/07/2017   Page: 2 of 2
    untimely. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Nguyen argued that, in the wake of Johnson v.
    United States, 
    135 S. Ct. 2551
    (2015), his three prior convictions for robbery did
    not qualify as predicate offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The
    district court ruled that Nguyen “was sentenced under the ACCA ‘elements test’’’
    and, because he did “not [make] a Johnson claim,” his motion was untimely as not
    filed within one year after his conviction became final. See 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(1).
    We affirm that Nguyen’s motion was untimely, but for a reason different than that
    relied on by the district court.
    The district court did not err by dismissing Nguyen’s motion as untimely.
    Nguyen failed to file his motion within one year after the Supreme Court ruled in
    Johnson that the residual clause of the Act is unconstitutionally vague, 18 U.S.C.
    § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Nguyen had until June 27, 2016, to move for relief based on
    Johnson, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3)(A), but he waited until July 11, 2016, two
    weeks after the one-year limitation period expired, to file his motion. Because the
    parties briefed the issue of timeliness and Nguyen replied to the argument that he
    missed the deadline, we may affirm on the ground advocated by the government.
    See Wood v. Milyard, 
    132 S. Ct. 1826
    , 1834 (2012).
    We AFFIRM the dismissal of Nguyen’s motion to vacate.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-17674

Citation Numbers: 692 F. App'x 989

Filed Date: 7/7/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023