UNITED STATES v. KNIGHT (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

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.

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, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), Knight failed to show that the potential for such an enhancement was “demonstrably made the basis for [his] sentence.” United States v. Hill, 915 F.3d 669 (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.

FOOTNOTES

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, 915 F.3d 669 n.1 (9th Cir. 2019).