UNITED STATES v. HIRANO (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Douglas Akira Hirano appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

Hirano contends that the district court erred by denying his section 2255 motion because the holding in Johnson v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), applies equally to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. He asserts that his sentence must be vacated because the textually identical residual clauses of the career offender provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and armed career criminal provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a), of the mandatory Guidelines under which he was sentenced are unconstitutional in light of Johnson. Contrary to Hirano's assertions, “Johnson did not recognize a new right applicable to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines on collateral review.” United States v. Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, No. 18-9368, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 2762, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2019 WL 2211790 (June 24, 2019). Accordingly, the district court properly denied relief under section 2255.

AFFIRMED.